MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2557283440 · doi:10.4043/27417-ms

Computational Fluid Dynamics Modeling of Subsea Pipeline Leaks in Arctic Conditions

2016· article· en· W2557283440 on OpenAlexaff
Muhammad Masum Jujuly, Premkumar Thodi, Mohammad Azizur Rahman, Faisal Khan

Bibliographic record

VenueArctic Technology Conference · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicOffshore Engineering and Technologies
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSubseaComputational fluid dynamicsMarine engineeringPipeline transportPetroleum engineeringPipeline (software)Leakage (economics)Environmental scienceEngineeringComputer scienceGeologyAerospace engineeringMechanical engineeringEnvironmental engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The purpose of this study is to investigate subsea pipeline leaks and their impact on the surroundings. A numerical approach using a computational fluid dynamics (CFD) package is used. The subsea condition is extremely harsh due to the remoteness and inaccessibility. Marine pipeline can be damaged directly by contact with drifting sea ice. Trenched pipeline is at risk as well, as it may be damaged by corrosion, or the pipeline could be plastically deformed by the resulting seabed shake down event. Furthermore, due to the remoteness and harsh climate of the under the ocean, it is difficult to conduct normal maintenance procedures. Leakage of pipelines in arctic subsea environment can have severe consequences. Leak detection and location identification in a timely manner is crucial because of the economic impact of a hydrocarbon spill to its stakeholders can be huge. Pipeline leakage could have an adverse impact on life, the environment, the economy and corporate reputation. It is imperative to take additional precautions while operating in the subsea regions, so rapid leak detection and location identification is crucially important. In this paper, a numerical modeling of a subsea pipeline leakage is performed using a 3-D turbulent flow model in computational fluid dynamics (CFD). Four different types of fluids are tested in this study, with specified operating conditions. It is difficult to conduct small-scale experiments on subsea pipeline with leakage, mainly because; the pipeline may need to release hydrocarbons to the environment. Further, since the industrial full-scale pipeline is large in diameter, fluid thermodynamics cannot be captured accurately in a small-scale, laboratory environment. Thus, a numerical simulation can provide a better understanding of pipeline internal flow and the consequences of pipeline leaks in different scales, reducing the cost and number of experiments. Commercially available ANSYS (FLUENT) computational fluid dynamics software is used to serve this purpose. ANSYS workbench provides integrated design, meshing technology, and large degree of freedom for pre- and post-processing for the fluid flow simulation in pipeline. The CFD simulation results in this study showed that the flow rate of the fluid escaping from the leak increases with pipeline operating pressure. The static pressure and pressure gradient along the axial length of the pipeline have observed a sharp signature variation near the leak orifice. This signature has been captured using pressure gradient curves. The temperature profiles near leak orifice indicate that the temperature is observed to increase slightly in the case of incompressible fluids; however, temperature drops rapidly for the compressible fluids. Transient simulation is performed to obtain the acoustic signature of the pipe near leak orifice. The power spectral density (PSD) signal is strong near the leak orifice and it dissipates as the distance and orientation from the leak orifice increase. The high-pressure fluid flow generates more noise than the low-pressure fluid flow. In order to model the turbulence large eddy simulation (LES) used and Ffowcs-Williams and Hawking (FW-H) model in FLUENT was activated to generate acoustic data. Time step of the simulation was selected At = 0.0005 s and the number of simulation 20000 to get higher frequency noise signal.

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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.056

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.202 · 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

Citations15
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArctic Technology ConferenceSame topicOffshore Engineering and TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207