MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2092360296 · doi:10.4043/25604-ms

Real-time Arctic Pipeline Integrity and Leak Monitoring

2015· article· en· W2092360296 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

VenueOTC Arctic Technology Conference · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicOffshore Engineering and Technologies
Canadian institutionsIntecsea (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPipeline transportWarning systemPipeline (software)Condition monitoringArcticScheduleReal-time computingEnvironmental scienceComputer scienceReliability engineeringEngineeringGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Real-time integrity monitoring is a sensor-based monitoring system aimed at enhancing the productivity of Arctic pipelines. The intent of pipeline integrity monitoring is to assess operating conditions and performance, improve performance and pipeline throughput, extend life and inform the operator if pipeline integrity is compromised. The other purpose of the monitoring is to provide the necessary information to perform optimal Inspection and Maintenance (IM) activities. Real-time integrity monitoring provides warning when something is starting to go wrong, and provides instantaneous information when things have gone wrong. Without monitoring, the condition would continue to degrade the pipeline integrity until failure. Due to Arctic pipeline design and operational challenges, like ice gouging, strudel scour, upheaval buckling, frost heave and permafrost thaw settlement, along with seasonal ice cover and remote location, real-time integrity monitoring is a challenge. With real-time monitoring systems that predict failures and maintenance requirements, the operator can schedule IM activities in an optimal manner. Real-time integrity monitoring balances the cost of monitoring with the benefits of early detection and subsequent warning of abnormal conditions to ensure reliability is maintained throughout the entire life of the pipeline. Arctic pipeline integrity monitoring solutions consist of different technologies, ranging from flow, pressure and temperature gauges, sand and H2S monitors, usage of in-line inspection tools and ROV, external continuous Fiber Optic Cable (FOC) temperature and strain sensors, satellite surveillance and overflight by helicopters. The first part of this paper will focus on Distributed Temperature Sensing (DTS) and Distributed Strain Sensing (DSS) systems to detect integrity threats arising from the unique Arctic design and operational challenges. The failure to detect pipeline leaks in a timely manner could have severe safety, environmental, and economic consequences in the Arctic. Large leaks can easily be detected, but small chronic leaks may go undetected for a period of time, especially when pipelines are buried in remote locations or under seasonal ice cover. Technology evaluation based on regulatory requirements and functional criteria suggests that Fiber Optic Cable (FOC) distributed sensing systems have a high potential to be used for Arctic pipelines to detect and locate leakages. Pipeline leakage would generate a local change in temperature. These thermal anomalies can be captured by FOC DTS systems with good spatial and temporal resolution. Similarly, the acoustic signature generated by leaking fluid could be detected using FOC Distributed Acoustic Sensing (DAS) systems. The second part of this paper covers the operating principles and technology status of FOC leak monitoring system for Arctic pipelines.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.428
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.210 · 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