MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2060313061 · doi:10.1115/omae2004-51395

Dynamic Analysis of Long Floating Structures in Waves

2004· article· en· W2060313061 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venue23rd International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, Volume 1, Parts A and B · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWave and Wind Energy Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSuperposition principleResponse analysisFinite element methodFrequency domainBending momentHarmonicAmplitudeMathematical analysisPhysicsMathematicsStructural engineeringAcousticsOpticsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper describes a frequency domain dynamic analysis technique for calculating the response of long floating structures in waves. Due to the large dimensions of the structure, it is necessary to account for the correlation of wave forces along the structure length to accurately calculate the response. The sea surface is therefore modeled as short-crested and is described by a directional wave spectrum. The dynamic analysis technique uses a superposition principle in which the short-crested sea is composed of numerous harmonic wave components with different frequencies and directions of propagation and amplitudes calculated from the directional wave spectrum. Hydrodynamic coefficients are calculated using a 2-dimensional diffraction program. The structure is modeled using beam elements in the ANSYS finite element program and moorings are represented using spring elements. The response of the structure to each wave component is calculated in a series of harmonic analyses. Spectral analysis is used to calculate the variance of the responses in a given storm event. The responses of interest for a given exceedence probability are then determined. The covariance of the responses is calculated and coincident response combinations are produced based on the assumption that the responses have a multi-variate normal distribution. The magnitude of coincident responses is often of interest in structural design. For example, a member subject to bi-axial bending could be designed to have excess resistance if the maximum value of the orthogonal bending moments obtained from a dynamic analysis is used rather than the coincident bending moments.

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.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.247
Threshold uncertainty score0.648

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.210 · 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