MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2084306217 · doi:10.2118/140086-ms

Thermally Compensated Leak Detection Results in Significant Blow Out Preventer (BOP) Testing Efficiencies

2011· article· en· W2084306217 on OpenAlexaff
C. Mark Franklin, Timothy L. Sargent, C. R. Brown, Geraint Owen, S. Griffith, Jeremy Warwick Osmond, Rick Cully

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicRisk and Safety Analysis
Canadian institutionsHamilton Health Sciences
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLeakSoftwareComputer scienceAcceptance testingReliability engineeringVerification and validationSoftware engineeringEngineeringOperating systemOperations management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Operators, service provides, and drilling contractors established an industry consortium to advance the art of leak detection. The initial development focused on software-based testing of BOPs in deepwater. Upon completion of the pilot program on five deepwater rigs, the results exceeded original expectations. The test results proved the software was effective, efficient, and rig friendly. Once the template was filled out, with the click of the "Start" button, the software was completely automated, up to the time of printing the report. Through an iterative and collaborative process a unique solution for the Low Pressure (LP) and High Pressure (HP) tests has been developed. Due to the subjective nature of the Circular Chart Recorder (CCR) methodology for validating a test, a small leak may not be identified for up to 30 minutes into the HP test. With this new methodology, objective identification of a slow leak normally occurs during the LP test in less than three minutes; and a good test (no leak) typically validates in the regulatory agency's minimum holding time requirements. The software provides greater assurances, transparency, and reliability as compared to the CCR. The antiquated CCR is easily manipulated in multiple ways, which is now eliminated. This software provides the industry with a tool for objective, efficient test validation. The software generates simple, clear, concise reports and contains more information as compared to what is currently available. It archives tests in a secure format, and the software allows the users to retrieve and review the tests for any required scrutiny. It also prints the reports to a secured PDF format and archives them. This paper discusses the current state of the development along with the associated benefits. A vision of the application development pipeline for further pressure analysis opportunities is also introduced.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.750
Threshold uncertainty score0.818

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.260
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.084 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRisk and Safety AnalysisFrench-language works237,207