MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2558610743 · doi:10.4043/27495-ms

Iceberg Impact Loads on a Concrete Floating Production Facility

2016· article· en· W2558610743 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Paul Stuckey, G. Parr, Perry Moore, Anil Sablok, Andrew Blundon

Bibliographic record

VenueArctic Technology Conference · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicOffshore Engineering and Technologies
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of NewfoundlandCentre For Cold Ocean Resources Engineering
FundersAtlantic Canada Opportunities Agency
KeywordsIcebergProduction (economics)Environmental scienceGeologyOceanographyEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The majority of exploration, development and production offshore Newfoundland has occurred in shallow water. Currently there are two floating production, storage and offloading (FPSO) vessels and one gravity based structure producing oil on the Grand Banks. In recent years, there has been a move to deeper water offshore Newfoundland. There have been significant discoveries at Bay du Nord and Mizzen, and new licence blocks are opening up towards the north and northwest of the existing producing fields. With the move towards deeper water, new challenges arise. Supply facilities, search and rescue equipment and other required infrastructure is much further away. A GBS structure is no longer an option due to the water depth. A disconnectable concrete Spar is being considered as a concept for deep water locations off Canada’s east coast. The platform is designed to withstand iceberg impacts, or to be disconnected and moved off location to avoid impacts from very large ice features. Global design loads (ice crushing forces on the platform) and mooring systems global loads were estimated using a two-step approach. First the concrete Spar was assumed to be fixed (i.e. not able to move during an iceberg impact) and quasi-static global design loads were estimated using the Iceberg Load Software (ILS). The ILS was developed to model iceberg impacts with a fixed platform such as a gravity based structure (GBS). Assuming the concrete Spar to be fixed is a very conservative assumption for floating platforms which are free to move upon impact, albeit limited by a mooring system. Second, the inertial properties of the platform and the mooring compliance were approximated using a one-dimensional timestep model. Since the time domain model is not as efficient computationally, a subset of the simulated impacts from the quasi-static analysis was used as input into the time domain model, and dynamic design loads were estimated. The resulting design loads were used by designers to ensure that the structure meets the requirements of ISO 19906:2010. The end product is a more effective design for the platform, while not compromising the safety of the personnel onboard or the integrity of the structure, mooring system or risers.

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 score0.051
Threshold uncertainty score0.102

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.207 · 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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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