Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revision Previous revision
Member:sungbeanJo_GG [2020/11/24 20:21]
sungbean 		Member:sungbeanJo_GG [2020/11/24 20:25] (current)
sungbean
Line 1: Line 1:
-A key requirement is providing a depth of cover report for +The trial has successfully demonstrated ROSEN’s 
-the pipeline. Figure 2, shows +methodology to estimate the depth of cover over 
-an example report using color +pipelines. This includes producing an accurate 
-bands to represent the estimated ​depth of cover along +pipeline centreline from data obtained during a 
-the pipeline. Table 2 shows +routine internal inspection, combined with ground 
-the classification that has +elevation data available from the Environment 
-been used for the field trial. +Agency (EA) to calculate ​depth of cover. 
-Figure 3 shows an example +• The results of the calculation have been validated 
-of ground and pipe elevation +against infield depth of cover measurements obtained using a pipe and cable locator. The accuracy 
-plotted according to distance +of the depth of cover results ​has been calculated 
-along the pipeline. At this location the pipeline crosses a +using a root mean square (RMS) error method. This 
-series of embankments ​and +has determined an overall accuracy ​of ±0.15 m using EA LiDAR data. 
-ditches. The bottom image +• Infield ground surface measurements were compared ​with the EA LiDAR and OS Terrain data. A 
-is a hillshade rendering ​of +
-ground elevation data to aid +
-visualization. The example +
-demonstrates how the inspection tool has measured +
-the change in pipe elevation +
-as the pipe passes beneath +
-the ditch crossing. The +
-increase in depth of cover +
-associated ​with the two embankments is also evident+

Trace:

Navigation