MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2280923908 · doi:10.1115/ipc2002-27056

Development of 36” EmatScan® Crack Detection (CD) Tool

2002· article· en· W2280923908 on OpenAlexaffabout
Mark Yeomans, Blaine P. Ashworth, Uwe Strohmeier, Achim Hugger, Thomas Wolf

Bibliographic record

Venue4th International Pipeline Conference, Parts A and B · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNon-Destructive Testing Techniques
Canadian institutionsTransCanada (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPipeline transportPipeline (software)Electromagnetic acoustic transducerWeldingStress corrosion crackingTransducerAcoustic emissionNatural gasCrackingHydrostatic pressureHydrostatic testEngineeringMaterials scienceStress (linguistics)Nominal Pipe SizeMechanical engineeringStructural engineeringCorrosionAcousticsMetallurgyComposite materialElectrical engineeringUltrasonic testingUltrasonic sensor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

TransCanada PipeLines has been performing periodic hydrostatic pressure tests of natural gas pipeline sections susceptible to stress corrosion cracking (SCC). In 1996, the Canadian National Energy Board (NEB) held a public inquiry into SCC and recommended that industry develop a reliable SCC In-Line Inspection (ILI) tool. This paper describes the TransCanada and PII Pipeline Solutions project to jointly develop a 36 inch (914 mm) diameter crack detection tool based on EMAT (Electro Magnetic Acoustic Transducer) technology. The EmatScan® CD tool is designed to operate in gas pipelines without a liquid couplant. The EmatScan® CD tool will detect and size longitudinally oriented external SCC features. In 2001, testing of the technology has shown that it can distinguish: • insignificant pipe wall features (stringers, laminations and inclusions) from SCC defects; • internal from external pipe wall features. Off-line tests were performed by pulling the tool through a series of pipe spools containing SCC and other pipe wall features. These pipe spools are from two sections of the TransCanada system where PII’s UltraScan® CD tool was run. This joint project to develop a new ILI tool began in early 1997, and will be completed in 2002.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.212 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations3
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue4th International Pipeline Conference, Parts A and BSame topicNon-Destructive Testing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207