MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2147292444 · doi:10.1115/omae2011-49593

Wave Patterns, Wave Induced Forces and Moments for a Gravity Based Structure Predicted Using CFD

2011· article· en· W2147292444 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Worakanok Thanyamanta, Paul D. Herrington, David Molyneux

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicCoastal and Marine Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAtlantic Canada Opportunities Agency
KeywordsComputational fluid dynamicsBending momentMechanicsCylinderDeckField (mathematics)Flow (mathematics)Volume of fluid methodFluid dynamicsGeologyComputer sciencePhysicsStructural engineeringEngineeringMechanical engineeringMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Gravity Based Structures (GBSs) are commonly used in the offshore oil and gas industry for storage during the production of hydrocarbons. The GBS sits on the sea bed, but it is subjected to forces and moments caused by waves. Obtaining accurate predictions of the magnitude of wave induced forces and bending moments is essential input to the structural design. Other key operational factors are the wave field in the vicinity of the structure and the amount of green water that will come onto the deck of the GBS. Scale model experiments can be used to obtain these predictions but this is an expensive option, especially in the early stages of a design, when many different concepts may be considered. An alternative method is to use Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD). One CFD approach that is particularly suited to the challenges of predicting the required performance parameters for a GBS is the Volume of Fluid method, which is available in the commercial code Flow-3D. This paper presents the numerical simulation of the wave field around a surface piercing cylinder using the Volume of Fluid approach and compares it to published results. It also presents the simulations of the forces, moments and wave field around a proposed Gravity Based Structure, for which model data was available. The results show that predictions made using the Volume of Fluid method agree well with the observed wave patterns close to the structure in both cases, and that the method also gives good predictions of the observed forces and bending moments acting on the 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 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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.326
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.166 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations6
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCoastal and Marine DynamicsFrench-language works237,207