PR-471-14207-Z03 Evaluation of Field Pump Performance Testing Procedure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In situ pump performance testing was performed at the TransCanada pipeline Monitor station in Alberta Canada and Liebenthal station in Saskatchewan Canada in accordance with the Field Pump Performance Testing Procedure (PRCI report PR-471-14207-R01). Testing at the Monitor station was performed by Sulzer with two different batches of crude oil with slightly different viscosities and densities. Because of the pipeline operation limitations the flow could not be varied appreciably, however the flow points were near the pumps bep flow and therefore believed to be beneficial. To help validate field pump performance testing techniques measurements were taken using two methods to measure flow and two to measure pump power-in. Testing at the Liebenthal station was performed by TransCanada personnel on one fixed speed and one variable speed unit. All testing was performed with one batch of crude oil. The fixed speed unit power was measured with electrical power to the motor and the variable speed unit power was measured with a torque meter and electrical power. A full description of the Excel sheets used to calculate the field pump performance and the factory test data corrected to field conditions is made. The spreadsheet is included with this report. This work will benefit the liquids pipeline operators by validating the field test procedure, thereby providing assurance and acceptance of the methods. Using these field pump performance testing methods on additional pumps will help populate the database of measured viscous pump performances. This data can then be used to further improve the Hydraulic Institutes viscous correction calculations. Additionally, improved field pump performance measurements will allow the pipeline users to optimize their pipeline operation.
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 | 0.013 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.006 |
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".