MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2218723017 · doi:10.1115/omae2015-42172

Estimating Iceberg-Wave Companion Loads Using Probabilistic Methods

2015· article· en· W2218723017 on OpenAlexaffabout
Mark Fuglem, Paul Stuckey, Somchat Suwan

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamics
Canadian institutionsArup Group (Canada)Centre For Cold Ocean Resources Engineering
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIcebergProbabilistic logicSoftwareSea stateComputer scienceMarine engineeringEngineeringMeteorologyGeologySea iceArtificial intelligenceRemote sensingGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many challenges arise when designing offshore structures for iceberg loads in arctic and subarctic regions. To help the designer, the ISO 19906:2010 standard provides guidance for the calculation of design ice loads using both deterministic and probabilistic approaches. In determining design loads for different environmental factors, both principal and companion actions must be taken into account; an example is iceberg actions and companion wave actions. ISO 19906 allows the designer to calculate the companion wave action as a specified fraction (combination factor) of the extreme level (EL) design wave load. Alternatively, the designer can calculate appropriate companion wave loads explicitly. A methodology has been developed at C-CORE in which representative iceberg actions are determined using a software package, the Iceberg Load Software (ILS). This is a probabilistic tool which uses Monte Carlo simulation to obtain a distribution of global impact forces based on the expected range of iceberg and environmental conditions that a structure would likely encounter. The software provides a reasonably accurate representation of the iceberg loading situation, following the provisions of ISO 19906:2010, without introducing unnecessary conservatism in the design load. In the software, the influence of waves on the iceberg actions are considered, but companion wave loads must be calculated and added externally to the software, The software accounts for the probability of different sea state conditions and the influence of the sea state on the probability and severity of iceberg impact, given the correlations between the sea state, iceberg management effectiveness and iceberg drift and wave-induced velocity. The additional hydrodynamic pressure due to the wave during the period of the impact; is not considered. This wave loading will be complicated by the influence that the presence the iceberg and structure have on the local sea state. In this paper, brief descriptions are provided of background studies on companion wave loading and the application of companion load factors in ISO 19906. The companion load factors allow the designer to apply the design wave load, which is calculated for situations with no iceberg present, to the case of iceberg impacts. In this study, a methodology is presented for determining companion wave loads based on the distribution of sea states expected during an iceberg impact. These sea states are significantly less severe than that associated with the design wave load as iceberg impacts are rare events. The companion wave loads are determined without accounting for the influence of the iceberg; this is thought to be quite conservative. An example application of the methodology is presented for a hypothetical platform located on the Grand Banks, off the east coast of Newfoundland. Iceberg actions, wave actions and combined iceberg-wave actions are estimated using the described methodology. Comparisons are provided for the resulting companion loads and those based on ISO 19906:2010 companion load factors applied to the extreme level wave load.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.094
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.223 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations3
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamics→French-language works237,207→