MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2323291484 · doi:10.1115/omae2008-57915

Innovative Ice Protection for Shallow Water Drilling: Part III — Finite Element Modelling of Ice Rubble Accumulation

2008· article· en· W2323291484 on OpenAlexaff
Arne Gu ̈rtner, Ibrahim Konuk, Ove Tobias Gudmestad, Pavel Liferov

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamics
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRubbleFinite element methodFracture (geology)GeologyTraction (geology)Geotechnical engineeringStructural engineeringEngineeringGeomorphology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The concept of the Shoulder Ice Barrier (SIB) has previously been presented in a companion paper under the same title at OMAE 2006 (Gu¨rtner et al., 2006), whereas ice model tests of the SIB are presented in an accompanying paper at this year’s OMAE (Gu¨rtner and Gudmestad, 2008). The present paper investigates a computational model for simulating ice-SIB interactions. This involves the simulation of rubble accumulations and accordingly the exerted ice forces. The computational model is developed within the framework of finite elements. Characteristic fracture of ice is handled by introducing the Cohesive Zone Approach (CZA), wherein cohesive elements are placed in-between the finite element grid of the ice. Fracture may thereby occur along element boundaries with due regard to fracture properties such as traction and separation. Fracture and plastic deformation of the ice are hence co-existing, though competing, mechanisms, while accounting for the dynamics of the ice mass. We compare the computational results with the ones obtained during the model testing.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.095
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.154 · 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

Citations6
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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