Mooring Design and Operation Practice for Floating Units Subject to Ice Loading
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract An Arctic Mooring JIP was initiated by Kwan Engineering Services and Global Maritime in 2013 to address the issue of Arctic mooring design and operation practice, which was completed in 2016. There were 24 participants including operators, drilling contractors, regulators, designers, and hardware manufacturers with a total funding of $780k. The JIP had five tasks related to mooring in the Arctic:Task 1 – Guidance on mooring strength design practiceTask 2 - Assessment of disconnect devices and requirementsTask 3 - Assessment of mooring components for operations in the ArcticTask 4 – Guidance on methods for ice load predictionTask 5 - Guidance on ice management strategies A guidance summary on Arctic mooring design and operation practice was developed by the JIP for input to industry standards. This paper presents the key elements in the guidance summary. ISO 19906 ‘Arctic Offshore Structures’ (ISO 2010) is the most recognized Arctic design code for fixed and floating structures, which does not provide practical guidance for mooring design and operation. API RP 2SK (API 2005) is the most recognized mooring design code, which does not cover moorings subjected to ice loading. The guidance developed by the Arctic Mooring JIP bridges the gap between these two codes and is a significant milestone for the design and operation of Arctic floating systems. The API Mooring Resources Group has incorporated the guidance summary developed by this JIP into a draft document for the 4th edition of API RP 2SK.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".