MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2072132766 · doi:10.1115/omae2011-49385

Design and Testing of Scour Protection for Adriatic LNG GBS

2011· article· en· W2072132766 on OpenAlexaff
Zhiwen Chen, David P. Hurdle, Nick Kram, Pedro Lomo ́naco, Andrew Cornett

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicCoastal and Marine Dynamics
Canadian institutionsCanadian Cardiovascular Society
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMooringLiquefied natural gasMarine engineeringSeabedSubmarine pipelineEngineeringEnvironmental scienceCivil engineeringGeotechnical engineeringGeologyNatural gasOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Adriatic LNG terminal is a liquefied natural gas offshore terminal located about 17 km off the coast of Rovigo, Italy in the northern Adriatic, where the water depth is approximately 29 m. Scour protection was needed around the GBS and the mooring dolphins to prevent the bed material under them from washing out. This paper presents a description of the scour protection design for the GBS and the mooring dolphins. The paper will first present the design criteria and the design approach. The dynamic stability approach, which has been developed in the recent years, was applied. This approach allows the profile of the armor rock to deform, but damage (loss of rocks from the scour protection system) must be very limited under the specified design environmental conditions. Particular aspects influencing the design of the scour protection in this case are the use of skirts and the composition of the upper layers of the seabed. The paper will further highlight the way in which existing data and physical modeling were used to arrive at the final design. In particular it will be demonstrated that this is an effective way to carry out the design and that the adaptations of the final design developed and tested during the physical model tests are important. Finally, the paper will present the final design obtained.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.873
Threshold uncertainty score0.518

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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.199
Teacher spread0.126 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations5
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCoastal and Marine DynamicsFrench-language works237,207