Monitoring and Prediction of Pipe Wrinkling Using Distributed Strain Sensors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As exploration of energy resources develops further into the remote Canadian North, pipeline construction is being pushed further into the unknown. The new pipeline construction in the North has generated a great need for understanding and predicting the behaviour of pipelines under harsh northern environmental conditions. Continuous real-time monitoring technology using distributed strain sensors has become a possible method for monitoring the performance of these pipelines in the field. The aim of this research is to find the correlation between the distributed strains along the line pipes and the local buckling (wrinkling) of these pipes, and to study the contribution of these distributed strains to the detection of initial wrinkle of buried pipelines. Both experiments and finite element analyses (FEA) concluded significant findings in the current research. Conventional strain gauges and advanced Brillouin Scattering fibre optic sensors (BSFOSs) were employed in the experimental programs. BSFOSs can measure the distributed strains spacing as close as 50 mm along the line pipes, so that these sensors can detect the wrinkle location along the monitored pipeline. The distributed strains measured from the BSFOSs and from conventional strain gauges in longitudinal direction are presented in this paper. The methodology for detecting the initiation of pipe wrinkling and finding the optimal positions of installation of the distributed sensors are proposed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".