MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2307524978 · doi:10.1115/1.4033076

Layout Optimization of a Floating Liquefied Natural Gas Facility Using Inherent Safety Principles

2016· article· en· W2307524978 on OpenAlexaff
Peiwei Xin, Faisal Khan, Salim Ahmed

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicRisk and Safety Analysis
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLiquefied natural gasNatural gasDeckComputer scienceEnvironmental scienceReliability engineeringEngineeringWaste management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents a layout optimization methodology for the topside deck of a floating liquefied natural gas facility (FLNG) using inherent safety principles. Natural gas is emerging as a clean energy, and a large amount of natural gas exists in the proven offshore area, thus making it an energy source with huge potential in today's and the future market. FLNG facilities tap natural gas from an offshore well by floating, compressing it into liquefied natural gas (LNG), and offloading it to LNG carriers after temporary storage. In addition, FLNG facilities enable long-distance as well as multilocation transportation. The FLNG facility requires compact design due to limited space and high construction costs and thus faces a more challenging situation where the design has to concurrently guarantee economic profits and a safe operational environment. Therefore, the layout of the topside deck, which includes production, storage, and other functions, plays a paramount role in designing an FLNG facility. This paper optimizes the layout of an FLNG topside deck by implementing inherent safety principles. The objective is to design a topside deck layout which achieves the largest extent of inherent safety with optimal costs. The details of the principles and their application for layout optimization are also provided.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.625
Threshold uncertainty score0.307

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.238 · 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 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

Citations15
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic EngineeringSame topicRisk and Safety AnalysisFrench-language works237,207