Numerical Simulation of Ice Ridge Gouging
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In coastal regions throughout the Arctic, the seabed is frequently scoured or gouged by sea ice ridges and icebergs. This presents an environmental hazard to pipelines or subsea infrastructures operating in the area and therefore a greater understanding of these processes is needed. This paper describes a three dimensional (3D), numerical model that was developed to simulate the failure behavior of a ridge keel as it interacts with the seabed. The simulation was conducted in Yade, an open-source code, which uses the Discrete Element Method (DEM) to model particle motions. The ice blocks in the ridge keel are modeled as spheres, which are initially bonded to contacting blocks via freeze-bonds. A Cohesive Frictional Model (CFM) which has cohesive bonds in tension and shear was used to simulate the freeze-bonds between ice blocks. In addition to normal and shear bonds, the model features springs which resist compression, shear, bending and torsion. Once the bonds are broken the material is assumed to behave like a Mohr-Coulomb material with a constant friction angle. Since the main focus of this paper is the failure behavior of the keel, the seabed is simplified as being rigid. Numerical simulation is compared with data collected from the Pipeline Ice risk Assessment and Mitigation (PIRAM) test program.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".