Steel/Concrete Composite Ice Walls for Arctic Offshore Structures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The oil and gas industry is considering deploying large gravity-based structures (GBS) into the high Arctic seas for year-round production where they will be exposed to multiyear ice loads. Conceptual studies of such structures suggest that the design for the ice load and the low draft requirement during deployment to the Arctic become key design aspects, focusing the attention on force-resisting strategies and ice wall design. A well-designed ice wall in combination with a well-thought-out ice resistance strategy can significantly reduce the cost and construction/installation schedule of a GBS. Ice walls made of steel/concrete/steel composite have the potential to provide significant robustness at a lower weight than typical all-concrete ice walls. Composite ice walls also provide the potential of more robust behavior than all-steel ice wall concepts. Composite walls, thus, promise great value as ice walls for Arctic structures. To validate composite ice walls, a testing program was conducted that applied high-intensity loads to beam specimens 1.8 meters long and 0.3 meter thick with varying degrees of plate stiffening and concrete confinement. Strength, stiffness, ductility, load paths, and failure mechanisms were evaluated. Test variables included temperature, concrete density and strength, load paths, and type of composite load-carrying system. The paper demonstrates the viability of composite ice walls. It presents the results of the testing program, discusses the proposed ice wall configuration and appropriate design procedures, and proposes the steps that have to be taken before composite ice walls can be applied for design and construction of an actual GBS.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".