MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3124153908 · doi:10.1115/ipc2020-9452

Pipeline Geohazards Screening: Using Results of Flood Scour Assessments to Provide a Simple Screening Tool for Pipeline Watercourse Crossings for Western Canada

2020· article· en· W3124153908 on OpenAlexaffabout
Julia Ryherd, Colleen Small, Richard Guthrie, Song Ling, Hawley Beaugrand

Bibliographic record

VenueVolume 3: Operations, Monitoring, and Maintenance; Materials and Joining · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrology and Sediment Transport Processes
Canadian institutionsStantec (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFlood mythChannel (broadcasting)Rating curvePipeline (software)Hydrology (agriculture)Return periodFluvialEnvironmental scienceCurrent (fluid)Civil engineeringGeologyGeotechnical engineeringEngineeringGeographyGeomorphology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Pipeline watercourse crossing assessments typically require field investigations, river surveys, and detailed scour analyses to predict whether or not a pipeline may be subject to flood scour deeper than their depth of cover (DOC). Flood scour algorithms rely on discharge, median grain size, and some measure of channel cross-sectional area to determine the tractive force of water on the stream bed. These algorithms are applied to non-cohesive sediments typical of fluvial systems. To better define pipeline threats at a screening level, reducing unnecessary field and analytical expenses, and focusing effort on credible hazards, we developed a flood scour screening tool that uses return period discharge (Q) as the only input requirement. In order to develop the tool, we plotted the results of over 400 detailed scour assessments for several grain sizes (1100 data points) completed in Alberta and British Columbia, in 2017, 2018 and 2019. The results clearly show the importance of channel variability and grain size, but also show definable discharge related trends. We compared the results of the National Engineering Handbook (NEH) and the United States Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) methods, both of which use industry accepted algorithms. We developed, and provided herein, relationships that can be used to screen out scour assessments at watercourse crossings where DOC is already known, or to support and expedite field programs where DOC is being obtained. If only Q is known, then a single graph, or single equation is used for a given region using fine sand as the assumed median grain size. If both Q and median grain size are known, then the user can determine a slightly less conservative result from a series of complementary equations. In all cases, we propose using the mean result of the USBR method, originally intended for design, to fully capture the potential variability in the calculated NEH flood scour. While conservative, the tool is easy to use, and we expect it will substantially reduce the assessment effort on smaller, or less erosive streams.

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)0.001
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 score0.255
Threshold uncertainty score0.972

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.256 · 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 designBench or experimental
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
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVolume 3: Operations, Monitoring, and Maintenance; Materials and JoiningSame topicHydrology and Sediment Transport ProcessesFrench-language works237,207