MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2208138937 · doi:10.1115/omae2015-42404

A Collaborative Approach to Root Cause Analysis: With Reference to Suncor Energy Terra Nova Flexible Flowlines and Risers

2015· article· en· W2208138937 on OpenAlexafffund
George Karabelas, Geoff Redfern, Brad Jacobs, Andrew Roberts, Upul S. Fernando, Brian Tink, Mark Varley

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicOffshore Engineering and Technologies
Canadian institutionsSuncor Energy (Canada)
FundersSuncor Energy Incorporated
KeywordsLeakFull scaleEngineeringSubmarine pipelineMarine engineeringRoot causeBARGEPetroleum engineeringStructural engineeringForensic engineeringGeotechnical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One riser and two flowline sections installed in the Suncor Energy Terra Nova riser replacement programme were shown to leak during field tests performed after site installation. No hydrocarbon loss occurred nor was there an environmental incident; however, the scheduled production start-up for the pipes was delayed. The pipes were designed and manufactured to comply with API [1] code and had successfully undergone full-scale factory acceptance testing (FAT) at 1.5 times design pressure following manufacture. Investigations confirmed that the leaks in both pipes occurred due to a crack in the polymer (PVDF) barrier within the end-fitting region of the pipe. It was also concluded that the crack in the barrier in these pipes occurred after completion of the FAT and sometime during the transportation, storage and subsequent installation of the pipes in the field. It was identified that the problem in the barrier resulted from an unknown thermo-mechanical loading condition of the pipe during this period, and also related to specific design features of some components in those end-fittings. The TapRoot Root Cause Analysis (RCA) tool was used to guide the investigation effort and consider all available data. Small and full-scale tests were performed to simulate and understand the end fitting design in the environments and conditions experienced during transport, installation and offshore testing. What is presented here is a brief outline of the incident and details of the subsequent investigation. The investigation was conducted over a period of 18 months with the participation of all parties involved in the design, manufacture, installation and operation of the flexibles. This paper summarises the investigation process followed, documents the results, discusses the results and outlines the conclusions and recommendations arising from this investigation.

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)0.000
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 score0.466
Threshold uncertainty score0.640

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.207 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicOffshore Engineering and TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207