MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2090359575 · doi:10.2118/2005-225

A Convenient Tracer Method for On-Site Gas Meter Proving

2005· article· en· W2090359575 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian International Petroleum Conference · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFlow Measurement and Analysis
Canadian institutionsQuest University Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTRACERMetreComputer scienceEnvironmental sciencePhysicsNuclear physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Errors of gas flow rate measurement in industry can result from actual operating conditions, installations or degradation of meter performance over time. An on-site (in-situ) gas meter proving method is the best way to reduce these errors, especially for large diameter pipelines in natural gas transmission and refinery flare systems. A convenient gas meter proving method, based on the radioactive tracer pulse velocity technique, will be presented in this paper. The tracer technology has been tested on 4-in and 12-in natural gas pipelines at a gas flow velocity range of 1 – 122 ft/s. The average difference is less than 1%, compared with the reference velocity of NIST-traceable mass flow rate. With the new method a small amount of radioactive isotopes is injected into the upstream pipeline, and one or more pairs of radiation detectors are placed along the line to measure the tracer time of flight, from which the gas velocity can be calculated. Different from liquid flow, gas flow frequently involves faster linear rates, shorter transit times and significant velocity changes between the measurement points. Properly designed procedures for the signal capture and analysis plays an important role in the meter proving accuracy and repeatability. A case study on application of the tracer method for proving the gas flow measurements on a large-scale refinery flare pipeline is presented. Introduction Gas flow in flare lines has been receiving greater attention due to state and federal regulatory priority for environmental protection. Gas flow measurement is a critical activity in chemical plants and refineries, but it often receives little attention. Many devices exist to measure gas flow. Some of them are of simple design and some are very complex. Some are easy to operate, while others are notorious for needing regular attention. Each design has its own degree of accuracy, which is usually associated with the cost of the device. Regardless of whether it is a simple or complex device, all flow meters have to be calibrated regularly. Manufacturers calibrate the meters at the factory facilities to known standards. The plant instrument personnel re-zero and span the meter as necessary or as scheduled. But, after installation, re-calibrating the meter has to be done one of three ways. The meter can be removed and sent back to the manufacturer, or a calibrated meter can be installed in a by-pass arrangement so the calibrated meter can check the flow to see if the installed meter is correct. In the third method, the flow through the in-situ meter can be measured with a tracer gas and compared to the meter reading. This paper will present a pulse velocity method based on injection of a radioactive isotope into the gas flow(1). The method has been tested on a commercial-scale calibration facility. The average difference is less than 1%, compared with the reference velocity of NIST-traceable (National Institute of Standards and Technology) mass flow rate. Pulse Velocity Method Direct flow measurement through an in-situ meter has been available for many years.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.406
Threshold uncertainty score0.974

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.220 · 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