MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2011598201 · doi:10.1115/ipc2006-10461

Liquefied Natural Gas Pipeline Suspension Bridge Design

2006· article· en· W2011598201 on OpenAlexaff
David Queen, Andreas Felber, Clark Scarborough, Peter Taylor

Bibliographic record

VenueVolume 1: Project Management; Design and Construction; Environmental Issues; GIS/Database Development; Innovative Projects and Emerging Issues; Operations and Maintenance; Pipelining in Northern Environments; Standards and Regulations · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground Structures
Canadian institutionsBuckland & Taylor (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPipeline transportDeckEngineeringSpan (engineering)Liquefied natural gasBridge (graph theory)Suspension (topology)SchedulePipeline (software)TrussTowerNatural gasCivil engineeringMarine engineeringStructural engineeringComputer scienceMechanical engineeringWaste management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A new Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) plant, in Equatorial Guinea, Africa required a pipeline corridor with supplementary utilities from the processing plant at about 55 m (180’) above sea level, down to the marine loading facility. The use of conventional structures and foundations on the unstable slope had substantial associated costs and risk. Various options were considered and the suspension bridge solution, avoiding the geotechnically unstable slope by providing tower foundations above the slope on stable ground and in the ocean, was selected. Buckland & Taylor Ltd. developed the final design of a 350 m (1148’) main span inclined deck, suspension bridge to carry the pipeline corridor across the unstable geotechnical slope. The configuration of the bridge was dictated by the site conditions and the allowable movements of the pipelines. The superstructure consists of steel towers approximately 60 m (197’) tall with two main cables, each composed of three 89 mm (3 1/2”) strands, supporting a 12 m (39.4’) wide truss deck system. The deck of the bridge is fully grated for safety and ease of installation of the pipes and utilities once the main bridge structure was complete. With the pipes in position, the walkway provides continuous access to the pipelines and utilities for future maintenance, as well as provides a fixed pedestrian route from the plant to the loading facility. The details of all of the components were developed to address the demanding schedule, available fabrication facilities, shipping restrictions to the remote location, flexibility in the erection sequence and ease of construction. Repetitive structural components were detailed to simplify fabrication, facilitate transportation to the site and improve the schedule during construction. The aggressive project schedule dictated that field investigations were still being undertaken while final design was being completed. Buckland & Taylor Ltd. made design changes to suit field conditions or methods of construction with minimal impact on fabrication and construction. The design process considered various methods of erecting the bridge to simplify details and improve the construction schedule. The design of the suspension bridge was initiated in August 2004, with the conceptual design complete in a month and the detailed design issued for construction in January 2005. The main foundation construction and structural steel fabrication proceeded immediately with priorities set to meet the construction schedule. With the progress of design, fabrication and construction, Buckland & Taylor Ltd. anticipates that pipes will be installed on the bridge 20 months after the start of design.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.002

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.215 · 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
GenreOther

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
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVolume 1: Project Management; Design and Construction; Environmental Issues; GIS/Database Development; Innovative Projects and Emerging Issues; Operations and Maintenance; Pipelining in Northern Environments; Standards and Regulations→Same topicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground Structures→French-language works237,207→