MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2086436320 · doi:10.4043/23788-ms

Impact Loads and Protection of Subsea Structures on the Seabed from Floating Iceberg Keels

2012· article· en· W2086436320 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

VenueOTC Arctic Technology Conference · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Integrity and Reliability Analysis
Canadian institutionsCentre For Cold Ocean Resources Engineering
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIcebergKeelSubseaSeabedStructural engineeringMarine engineeringBucklingBending momentEngineeringTension (geology)GeologyDeformation (meteorology)Submarine pipelineGeotechnical engineeringSea iceMoment (physics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In iceberg prone regions, subsea substructures placed on the seabed are atrisk of impacts from free-floating and scouring iceberg keels. Here themethodology for assessing iceberg loads and two mitigation strategies aredescribed. The iceberg load model was an extension of previous work forestimating iceberg impact loads on offshore surface-piercing structures. Components of the algorithms were modified such that global design loads fromkeel contacts account for the change in contact location (i.e., longer leverarm in the vertical direction resulting in greater rotation effects). Theiceberg eccentricity model and the relationship between contact area andpenetration distance were also modified to account for iceberg keel contactswith a generic low profile structure on the seabed. One concept considered wasa single wellhead structure fitted with a special weak shear link incorporatedinto the design at the expected scour level. The shear link, or failure joint, would act as a mechanical fuse designed to fail in a combination of shear, tension and buckling during keel loading. The failure joint minimizes downholestructural response during iceberg keel loading on the production tree. Thedesigned failure mechanism would allow the well to be re-entered by protectingthe well casing from damage. Another concept considered was a steel truncatedcone structure installed over the well installation and fixed to the seabed byone of several identified foundation concepts. The protection structure absorbsenergy through crushing of the ice keel and encourages the iceberg to deflectaround and over the structure. The steel structure would be designed accordingto ultimate limit states accounting for energy absorption through elastic andplastic deformation of the structure. Design loads would correspond to anAbnormal Level Ice Event (ALIE) with an annual exceedance probability of 10–4. The size of the frame is governed by the size of the wellhead and tree system, Remotely Operated Vehicle (ROV) access requirements, and slope to encourageiceberg keel deflection. Piles may be the best option for securing a protectionstructure to the seabed, especially if a local vessel can be sourced to performthe installation. As an alternative to piles, using a drill rig to install wellcasings may be an option; however, market conditions for drilling rigs maydictate economic feasibility.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.267
Threshold uncertainty score0.383

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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.218 · 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