MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2466329992 · doi:10.1061/9780784479957.139

Dealing with the Results of Advanced Inspection Technology—Emergency Rehabilitation of the St. James Interceptor Siphon by CIPP Methods in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada

2016· article· en· W2466329992 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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenuePipelines 2016 · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground Structures
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WinnipegAecom (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSiphon (mollusc)Marine engineeringEngineeringSonarEnvironmental scienceHydrology (agriculture)Geotechnical engineeringGeologyOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper outlines the inspection, condition assessment, and rehabilitation of the St. James interceptor siphon crossing beneath the Assiniboine River in Winnipeg Manitoba, Canada. The St. James interceptor siphon, constructed in 1963, services approximately 2,200 hectares of northwest Winnipeg, and conveys peak dry flows of up to 713 L/s. The twin 600 and 500 mm steel siphons were inspected using a number of advanced condition assessment tools including: Sonar in 2012 and remote field eddy current technology (RFEC) in the fall of 2014. After full flow by-passes were able to be put in place in early 2015, CCTV inspections were also conducted to prepare for lining operations. The RFEC inspection was part of a larger program to inspect 19 high risk river crossings throughout the City to quantify failure risk and prioritize for rehabilitation where necessary. The RFEC data gathered during the inspections indicated that portions of the 500 mm siphon had deteriorated to the point of having no effective remaining wall thickness. While the 600 mm siphon appeared to be in much better condition, localized defects were found that were of legitimate concern to its reliability. While the exact cause of the extensive preferential deterioration within the 500 mm siphon is unknown, correlations between the vertical profile of the siphon and the RFEC data indicated the localised buildup of hydrogen sulphide (H2S) within the 500 mm siphon under normal operating conditions due to the presence of a localized high spot in the middle of the river. Whereas the larger 600 mm siphon maintains an air gap along the siphon, allowing it to expel any gas buildup during normal operation of the siphon. The deployment of inspection tools and completion of the rehabilitation work was complicated by the configuration of the upstream sewer system which receives flows from two distinct trunk sewers. A complex gravity flow diversion concept was developed by AECOM and tendered for installation with the rehabilitation of each siphon; permitting each siphon to be isolated individually during normal dry weather flow. Due to the vertical profile, diameter, and length of the siphons (205 m), Cured-in-place-pipe (CIPP) was selected as the preferred rehabilitation method. The siphons have minimal rise on the downstream end (approximately 0.3 m) and the presence of concrete anchors allowed dewatering of the pipes with minimal effort and a low risk of floatation. The use of water inversion/curing processes and a full length temperature monitoring system permitted curing of the liners in a very complex heat sink for CIPP curing. The siphons were successfully rehabilitated in the fall of 2015 under very challenging conditions without incident.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.167
Threshold uncertainty score0.989

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.218 · 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