How Dry Is Dry?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Air drying is used after dewatering to dry a pipeline or piping facility before commissioning it with natural gas. This process typically involves blowing dehydrated air through the pipe sections until they are determined to be suitably dry. The question addressed in this paper is: how dry is dry? A common metric used to judge the pipe section’s dryness is the drying air’s outlet water dew point. Typically, air drying continues until a suitably dry low water dew point, such as −40°C, is measured at the outlet of the pipeline or facility. However, there is currently a lack of understanding of how this final outlet water dew point relates to the remaining water and thus the subsequent start up of the pipeline or facility. If the outlet water dew point is higher than required, issues may arise upon start up; e.g., hydrates could form along the pipeline or at downstream facilities. Conversely, if the outlet water dew point is lower than required, unnecessary time would have been spent in drying, and hence higher cost. This paper advocates an approach to determine when air drying is complete that considers the start-up phase. The approach consists of two parts. In the first part, the air drying parameters (drying air flow rate, inlet water dew point, etc.) and the final outlet water dew point are used to quantify the volume and surface area of water remaining after the drying process is completed. In the second part, the evaporation of this water into the gas flowing through the pipeline/facility after commissioning and start up is modeled as a function of the gas flow rate, temperature, pressure and inlet water content. Then, the water content of the gas at the delivery points is calculated. This increase can then be evaluated in reference to the water content specifications at the delivery points. The approach is exemplified by a 31 km NPS 48 pipeline over a mountainous terrain.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 0.011 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".