MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4312995325 · doi:10.1115/ipc2022-87046

Use of Inertial Measurement Unit In-Line Inspection Data to Support Code Stress Compliance and Integrity Evaluations

2022· article· en· W4312995325 on OpenAlex
Jonathan Prescott, Curtis Patterson, Arfeen Najeeb

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Integrity and Reliability Analysis
Canadian institutionsHusky Energy (Canada)Stantec (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInertial measurement unitPipeline (software)Pipeline transportComputer scienceUnits of measurementOrientation (vector space)Real-time computingEngineeringMechanical engineeringComputer visionPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Pipelines are an essential segment of infrastructure required to transport a variety of products to markets in our economies. The integrity and safe operation of those pipeline necessitates that pipeline operators have a thorough understanding of their pipeline systems, their configuration, and the changing operating condition within their pipeline networks. Inertial measurement unit (IMU), a technology that can measure the angular rate and acceleration and when combined with global positioning and navigation equipment such as pipeline above ground markers, can calculate position and orientation with 6 degrees of freedom: x, y, z, and pitch, roll, and yaw. IMU launched within the pipeline via in-line inspection tool trains, can be used to develop accurate three-dimensional geometry of the pipelines they inspect. This information can be used to confirm the geometry of the pipeline (i.e. degree of roping, bend angle, bend radius, and other abnormalities observed within the generated centerline from the inspection based on conventional construction practices). Therefore, the application of IMU technology within pipeline design and integrity work can be a useful tool in providing the necessary input information which can support ongoing studies such as verification of maximum operating thermal differentials which can be imposed on a pipeline to remain compliant with governing pipeline codes, and/or the information can be used to perform gap analysis studies with other integrity records (alignment sheets, as-built pipe tallies), or to support other pipeline integrity evaluations. When IMU data is processed with mathematical techniques essential information from IMU data can be obtained such as bend angle, bend radius, and degree of installed curvature. A case study showing the results of the application of processed IMU data for as-built evaluation is presented and its use to help support a variety of decision making is discussed. The IMU data is a key data input when constructing detailed finite element models for on-going stress analysis studies.

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.

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 score0.062
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

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 head0.402
GPT teacher head0.375
Teacher spread0.026 · 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