MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2557983200 · doi:10.4043/27428-ms

Ridge Keel Forces on Vertical Structures

2016· article· en· W2557983200 on OpenAlexaffabout
Lawrence Charlebois, R. Frederking, Mohamed Sayed, Anne Barker

Bibliographic record

VenueArctic Technology Conference · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil Mechanics
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKeelRidgeWaterlineContext (archaeology)RubbleSubmarine pipelineOffshore geotechnical engineeringGeologyEngineeringFreeboardDegree RankineMarine engineeringStructural engineeringGeotechnical engineeringHull

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In northern regions, ice forces, or actions, must be considered in the design of structures such as light piers, bridge piers, and offshore platforms. Estimates of ice forces in Canadian waters are usually obtained by consulting design standards such as those developed by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and the Canadian Standards Association (CSA). These design standards draw on available analytical formulae. Field measurements are available from several sources that suggest reasonable agreement with analytical results for simple cases involving wide structures. One of the remaining uncertainties in estimating design loads, however, is the contribution of force imposed below the waterline due to unconsolidated keels of ice ridges. Only cursory guidance is provided by the standards associations and their analytical design equations. Close inspection of those formulae show that force estimates can become excessive in situations where the expected keel depth is great compared to the designed structure width. Such scenarios would be expected in offshore oil and gas operations where drilling risers, jack-up legs, and even jacket structures may be exposed to ice ridges. The present work examines available approaches for evaluating ridge keel forces, including passive pressure calculations. The processes of ice rubble failure and the corresponding stress distributions are considered in the context of classical soil mechanics applied in geotechnical engineering. Design standards are also used to calculate ice forces for a range of ridge keel properties, keel geometries, and structure design widths. Field measurements from the Norströmsgrund lighthouse and the offshore Molikpag caisson are then examined and compared to the forces obtained using these approaches. The authors conclude that the shape factor adopted in ISO 19906 plays an important role in calculations considering narrow structures and deep keels. It is also shown that the sensitivity of ridge keel load calculation to geometric factors varies considerably with structure width. Furthermore, an absence of real world data from ridge keel interactions with very narrow structures precludes validation of present models in these situations and should be the focus of data collection and model refinement.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.197
Teacher spread0.188 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArctic Technology ConferenceSame topicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil MechanicsFrench-language works237,207