MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4409485814 · doi:10.5006/s2021-00007

Automated Surface Preparation and Lining Installation in Penstocks and Large Diameter Water Pipes

2021· article· en· W4409485814 on OpenAlexaffabout
Late Ray Tombaugh, Tyler Colby, Davinder Khangura

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground Structures
Canadian institutionsBC Hydro (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPenstockMaterials scienceSurface (topology)Composite materialComputer scienceGeologyEngineeringStructural engineeringGeometryMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Since the catastrophic accident at the Cabin Creek penstock in Georgetown, CO on October 2, 2007 where five coating applicator’s lives were lost (Ref 1), the hydroelectric and water transmission industry has been looking for safer practices to line the interior of penstocks and other large diameter water pipes. In nearly all applications, owners and specifiers have required the use of 100% solids coatings as opposed to the previously used solvent borne coatings. Safety protocols have been established that limit the amount of solvent and other flammable liquids in the pipe. However, in most cases, the surface preparation and coating work is still performed with personnel in the pipes. One hydroelectric utility essentially eliminated the need for personnel to enter the pipe during the surface preparation and lining installation processes. BC Hydro in Vancouver, British Columbia developed coating work prerequisites that required contractors to develop surface preparation and lining installation methods that were automated, controlled, and monitored from outside the pipe. Entry into the pipe by workers was only needed for equipment set-up, adjustments, spent abrasive removal, and some quality control. This paper addresses the conceptual design process, describes the robotic equipment that was developed for the first project at BC Hydro Bridge River 2 Penstock 1, and the overall performance of the equipment. Lessons learned from the project implemented with automated equipment are also described.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.209 · 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
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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