MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2032698219 · doi:10.4043/15264-ms

A New Technology for Increasing the Load-Carrying Capacities of Offshore Foundations in Soft Clays

2003· article· en· W2032698219 on OpenAlexafffund
S. Micic, K. Y. Lo, Julie Q. Shang

Bibliographic record

VenueOffshore Technology Conference · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectrokinetic Soil Remediation Techniques
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsSubmarine pipelineFoundation (evidence)Electrokinetic phenomenaGeotechnical engineeringSettlement (finance)Civil engineeringEngineeringEnvironmental scienceComputer scienceMaterials scienceGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract An experimental study on electrokinetic improvement of the load-carrying capacity of offshore foundations embedded in soft clays is conducted. The paper presents a summary of method and results of two series of electrokinetic tests conducted on natural and simulated marine clays in small-scale and large-scale laboratory testing facilities. The results demonstrated that the load-carrying capacity of the foundation models increased up to three times after electrokinetic treatment. Introduction Recent developments in the offshore oil and gas industry have resulted in an increasing number of offshore construction projects that include different types of offshore platforms. If the seabed in the construction areas consists of soft marine clay deposits, these structures may encounter serious geotechnical problems. These soil deposits are widespread in the oceans throughout the world and are often characterized by the low shear strength and high compressibility that usually result in extensive settlement under structural loading. The construction and installation costs of the structures are enormous, and the consequences of failure can be catastrophic. To overcome the foundation problems caused by difficult soil conditions, there are two alternatives, i.e., increasing the size of the foundation or improving the soil. Electrokinetics (EK) may be used to strengthen the soil when the latter alternative is considered in design and construction. This study investigates the feasibility of electrokinetic strengthening of soft marine clays, and consequently increasing the load-carrying capacities of foundations embedded in such soils. Over the last decade, skirted foundations have been increasingly used to support large offshore structures such as gravity platform jackets, jackup rigs, semi-submersible platforms, floaters, tension leg platforms, sub-sea systems and other structures. Skirted foundations are used to resist both compressive forces from fixed jacket structures (e.g. Sleipner T platform) (Sparrevik, 1998) and tensile forces from floating or tension-lag platforms (Snorre TLP platform) (Fines et al., 1991). They have been used in the past in water depths that range from 70 m (e.g. Draupner E heavy jacket in the North Sea) (Tjelta, 1995) to about 1000 m (e.g. semi-submersible platform at Marlim Field offshore Brazil) (Mello et al., 1998). Skirted foundations are large, hollow, cylindrical foundation elements that are usually made of steel. Their capacity to carry loads depends on factors such as depth of skirt penetration, cylinder diameter, soil strength and the combination of horizontal, vertical and moment loads. When soft soils are encountered in a site, however, the load-carrying capacity is governed by an undrained shear failure in the soil. Therefore, the undrained strength of the soil becomes one of the major concerns in the design of skirted foundations. Skirted foundations are installed by penetrating the skirts into the seabed, first partially under self-weight, and then by creating an underpressure inside the cylinder (Andersen and Jostad, 1999). A thin zone of soil along the skirts will be remoulded during installation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.437
Threshold uncertainty score0.901

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.229 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOffshore Technology ConferenceSame topicElectrokinetic Soil Remediation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207