MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2899904669 · doi:10.1115/ipc2018-78426

Pipeline Rupture Detection Using Real-Time Transient Modelling and Convolutional Neural Networks

2018· article· en· W2899904669 on OpenAlexaff
J. C. Smith, Jaehee Chae, Shawn Learn, Ron Hugo, Simon Park

Bibliographic record

VenueVolume 3: Operations, Monitoring, and Maintenance; Materials and Joining · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWater Systems and Optimization
Canadian institutionsTransCanada (Canada)University of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer sciencePipeline (software)LeakPipeline transportTransient (computer programming)False alarmUpgradeReal-time computingConvolutional neural networkConstant false alarm rateReliability (semiconductor)Reliability engineeringPreprocessorEngineeringArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Demonstrating the ability to reliably detect pipeline ruptures is critical for pipeline operators as they seek to maintain the social license necessary to construct and upgrade their pipeline systems. Current leak detection systems range from very simple mass balances to highly complex models with real-time simulation and advanced statistical processing with the goal of detecting small leaks around 1% of the nominal flow rate. No matter how finely-tuned these systems are, however, they are invariably affected by noise and uncertainties in a pipeline system, resulting in false alarms that reduce system confidence. This study aims to develop a leak detection system that can detect leaks with high reliability by focusing on sudden-onset leaks of various sizes (ruptures), as opposed to slow leaks that develop over time. The expected outcome is that not only will pipeline operators avoid the costs associated with false-alarm shut downs, but more importantly, they will be able to respond faster and more confidently in the event of an actual rupture. To accomplish these goals, leaks of various sizes are simulated using a real-time transient model based on the method of characteristics. A novel leak detection model is presented that fuses together several different preprocessing techniques, including convolution neural networks. This leak detection system is expected to increase operator confidence in leak alarms, when they occur, and therefore decrease the amount of time between leak detection and pipeline shutdown.

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 score0.204
Threshold uncertainty score0.753

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.193 · 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

Citations9
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVolume 3: Operations, Monitoring, and Maintenance; Materials and JoiningSame topicWater Systems and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207