MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3124259432 · doi:10.1115/ipc2020-9288

Slope Movement Inspection Using Axial Strain Data Across Multiple Lines and Repeat Inspections

2020· article· en· W3124259432 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mohamed ElSeify, Sylvain Cornu, Raymond Karé, Ali Fathi, John A. Richmond

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground Structures
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPipeline transportGeohazardRange (aeronautics)Strain (injury)GeologyStructural engineeringLandslidePipeline (software)Geotechnical engineeringEngineeringMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Axial strain inspection using the AXISS™ is an established tool in the pipeline operator’s toolbox to assess pipeline geotechnical threats and other strain related events. Consequently, there is a large database of axial strain data for several different pipelines operating in different environments and from multiple inspections at the same geographical locations. The Cheecham slope, located south east of Fort McMurray, Alberta, is a known geohazard site crossed by six individual pipelines. The lines were constructed between 1999 and 2013 and have a size range of 10” to 36”. Five out of the six lines, 12” to 36”, have been inspected using the axial strain tool. The pipelines inspected cover a range of characteristics including, different vintages, pipe diameters and positions in the ROW. These differences, and the ILI runs provide an insight into the effect of a landslide event on the strain response of these pipelines. Axial strain measurement of the multiple pipelines in the Cheecham slope’s ROW allows: i) a direct comparison between lines ii) evaluation of the strain profile across the slope iii) assessment of the magnitude of the axial strain in terms of pipe characteristics e.g. pipe vintage and mechanical properties. More importantly, the axial strain data may provide an additional tool to assess the effectiveness of strain mitigation steps carried out over the years. An increase in the frequency of axial strain ILI runs resulted in additional data being available and more importantly data from run to run inspections spread over months or sometime years. A single run captures the strain at the time of inspection but run to run inspections provide an additional comparative tool to evaluate and monitor pipeline movement. Two out of the five lines inspected have run to run axial strain data. This paper takes the Cheecham slope as a case study to discuss the benefits of run comparison of ILI axial strain data either by comparing strain values of repeated runs for a single line or by the cross comparison of strain responses of different lines in the same ROW. The paper aims to demonstrate how run to run analysis of ILI axial strain data can be implemented as part of geohazard risk management program to asses strain risk profiles of these locations and to assess the effectiveness of strain mitigation programs previously undertaken by operators.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.222 · 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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground Structures→French-language works237,207→