Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canada has a history of codes developed and adopted specifically for the petroleum and natural gas industry from the early 1990s, in anticipation of offshore development. The current practice for the design of marine oil and gas terminals in Canadais to use design criteria based on a combination of U.S. and Canadian codes. The use of multiple codes and standards with different load factors and/or different resistance factors is problematic because it deviates from the standards of reliability design associated with the use of a single suite of codes that are interlinked based on research. Canada has adopted the CAN/CSA-ISO 19900 series of standards for the design and assessment of offshore structures, specifically for the petroleum and natural gas industry. These are essentially amended versions of the ISO 19900 series. The CAN/CSA-ISO 19900 series appears to be most applicable for loading conditions, analysis and design of marine oil and gas terminals. This series provides an almost all inclusive suite of codes for structural design, minimizing the ambiguity and challenge associated with using different load factors and/or different resistance factors originating from entirely different codes. Furthermore, these codes have been adopted by the Canadian authorities as National Standards of Canada. This paper presents a comparative study of Canadian and International codes and presents CAN/CSA-ISO19900 series of standards as one possible option for use in design of marine oil and gas terminals in Canada. The conclusions are presented in the form of a hierarchy of applicable Canadian codes, loads and load combinations, resistance factors, seismic provisions, and other provisions essential to marine oil and gas terminals design. It should be noted that the conclusions presented in this paper are for reference only and should be verified prior to use. The scope of the study was limited to evaluation for steel structures only.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.042 | 0.018 |
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".