MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4385720569 · doi:10.1061/9780784485026.025

Large Diameter Pipeline Rehabilitation: Reducing Construction Risk through Planning and Mitigation

2023· article· en· W4385720569 on OpenAlexaff
Adam Braun, Nathan Kehler

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground Structures
Canadian institutionsManitoba Beekeepers' Association
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPipeline (software)Computer scienceRehabilitationRisk analysis (engineering)Construction engineeringEngineeringBusinessMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pipeline rehabilitation comes with a variety of inherent risks, ranging from system operations, extreme weather, and the installation process itself. While the budgetary effectiveness and socioeconomic benefits of trenchless rehabilitation remain ever present, understanding and planning for risk should be a key component of any rehabilitation program, the necessity of which becomes even more apparent when the risks associated with large diameter and complex rehabilitation work are evaluated. Working within existing in-service pipelines, which often form part of a much larger collection system, creates inherent risk for trenchless rehabilitation. As pipeline diameters increase, flow conveyance and asset criticality go up while redundancy within the system typically goes down. To quantify risk, a sufficient understanding of the existing system, flow regimes, and failure consequences is required. Rehabilitation technologies, similarly, have a range of characteristics which affect both installation and system risk during construction. Beyond long-term structural and operational performance characteristics, the selection of rehabilitation systems must also consider their imposed risk on the wider system during installation. This paper will address recommended planning activities and considerations for trenchless pipeline rehabilitation with a focus on large diameter and complex rehabilitation. Topics discussed include evaluating the existing system, assessing rehabilitation technologies, quantifying risk, tendering, and construction monitoring. Failure to undertake adequate planning can lead to unfortunate events, such as basement flooding, sewer overflows, or other third-party damage with potential costs well in excess of the contract value. Ultimately, the responsibility for risk mitigation falls to all parties involved, that is, the engineer, owner, and contractor. All three parties have a critical role in the process, and the paper delineates these responsibilities and provides recommendations for how risk mitigation can be implemented at all stages of the project. It is the authors’ hope that readers (from all facets of the rehabilitation process) will gain a better understanding of risk assessment process and its importance when planning and implementing trenchless pipeline rehabilitation projects.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.217 · 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 designNot applicable
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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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