Overview of Case Studies for Draft ISO 19906
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract The new international code ISO 19906 "Petroleum and natural gas industries - Arctic offshore structures" [1] was published in December 2010 after more than nine years of development, see Spring et al. [2]. Under the ISO process for standards development, ISO/DIS 19906 (the draft for public comment) was published in January 2009 and distributed to all ISO member countries for review and comment by June 2009. During this five-month period the opportunity was taken to perform case studies to ensure that the provisions of the code and its references were sufficiently complete for an experienced and knowledgeable engineer to design the structures within its scope. The objectives were to identify errors and gaps, ensure that diverse structures were adequately addressed, and to collate comments to the ISO draft for consideration by the Technical Panels with delegated responsibility for the provisions as they prepared the Final Draft. This paper sets out the case studies performed and the improvements arising in the final document resulting from comments provided by the organisations performing the case studies. Introduction The new ISO 19906 has been developed in Working Group 8 (WG8) of ISO Technical committee TC67/SC7 "Offshore structures". Experts from all arctic nations and from most other nations involved in the design of offshore structures in arctic and cold regions participated in WG8. Consequently, all the arctic nations and all European nations have undertaken to adopt ISO 19906 into their sets of national standards, and ISO 19906 is expected to be adopted worldwide for design of arctic offshore structures. WG8 and its supporting industry therefore decided to initiate a programme of case studies both to validate the standard and to start the process of industry engagement. WG8 established TP10 "Case studies and calibration" in June 2008 to execute a calibration study and to perform case studies on ISO/DIS 19906. The members were volunteers from around the world, many from the oil and gas companies who would be future owners and operators of arctic offshore structures.. TP10 defined eight cases for study. Each case was for a specific structure type in a specified arctic region, with key parameters defined but otherwise it was left to the performer of the study to bring their experience and knowledge to complete the scenario. Proposals were sought from organizations around the world, including consultants, design contractors, universities, research institutes and classification societies. Forty seven offers were received, from North America, Europe and Russia, of which fifteen were contracted using industry funding and one was offered at no cost TP10 held five meetings and corresponded extensively by email and telephone conference calls. The OGP (the International Association of Oil and Gas Producers) facilitated funding from oil companies participating in WG8 and TP10 to fund TP10's activity. The OGP also acted as the administrator for the contracts required to execute the work directed by TP10.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».