MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2538407715 · doi:10.1115/ipc2000-186

Crack Detection Program on the Cromer to Gretna, Manitoba Section of Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Line 3

2000· article· en· W2538407715 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
L. Blair Carroll, Moe S. Madi

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Integrity and Reliability Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPipeline transportPipeline (software)PiggingLine (geometry)Section (typography)ExcavationWeldingEngineeringGas pipelineGeologyForensic engineeringGeotechnical engineeringMechanical engineeringComputer scienceOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Line 3 is an 860mm (34 inch), API 5LX Grade X52 pipeline with nominal wall thickness ranging from 7.14 mm to 12.5 mm. The Canadian portion of the Line runs from Edmonton, Alberta to Gretna, Manitoba. It was constructed between 1963 and 1969 in a series of loops designed to increase the capacity of the Enbridge system. Until 1999 the pipeline operated in a looped configuration with neighboring 24 inch and 48 inch pipelines. Line 3 downstream of Kerrobert, Saskatchewan began operating in straight 34 inch configuration in 1999 following completion of the first phase expansion project known as Terrace Expansion Project that connects the (48 inch) loops with a new (36 inch) pipeline. In 1997, the Pipetronix (now PII) Ultrascan CD in-line inspection tool was run for 283 km from Cromer to Gretna, Manitoba, to identify long seam cracking and pipe body stress corrosion cracking. This section of the line is comprised primarily of pipe manufactured with a double submerged arc welded long seam with short sections of pipe having electric resistance welded long seams. There were two primary objectives set forth in this inspection project. The first was to assess the integrity of this section of Line 3 and identify anomalies, which might affect the future operation of the pipeline. The second objective was to evaluate the performance of the Ultrascan CD tool and determine its potential role in the Enbridge integrity program. A series of excavations have been conducted based upon the analysis of this data and none of the indications identified were considered to be an immediate concern to the integrity of the pipeline. Notably, two of the excavations resulted in the detection of the first two “significant” SCC colonies (based upon the CEPA definition of significant) [1] found on the Enbridge system. This paper will focus on the tool performance requirements established by Enbridge prior to the inspection run which include specific defect type and size and defects at a maximum sensitivity of the tool. In addition, the information obtained as a result of the excavation program and onsite inspection and assessments. The information gathered, from this program were useful in better understanding the tool tolerance in detecting such defects and to better differentiate between them.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.314
Threshold uncertainty score0.633

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0210.004

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.219 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicStructural Integrity and Reliability AnalysisFrench-language works237,207