Pile Foundation System for Offshore Protection Structure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The hydrocarbon production facilities offshore eastern Canada must contend with icebergs. Subsea infrastructure is typically protected by placement in excavated drill centers (EDCs). EDCs are large excavations where subsea infrastructure is installed below the depth of potential iceberg penetration. However, EDCs are expensive for marginal field developments and therefore alternative concrete Subsea Ice Protection Structures (SIPS) are being evaluated. A concept 8 m high circular concrete SIPS of 45m and 25m outside and inside diameter, respectively, would be placed directly on the seabed. Global loads from contact with an iceberg are estimated to be less than 100 MN without ice management. Pipe piles are proposed to resist the lateral forces. Such large diameter pipe piles are commonly used on the Grand Banks to anchor mooring lines. Movement of the iceberg onto the SIPS may also generate greater vertical load onto the structure, increasing the sliding resistance. This paper presents an evaluation of the ultimate lateral load capacity of the piled foundation at large displacements. Centrifuge model tests were compared to numerical modelling results and to reduce the uncertainty with extrapolating the P-y method of pile analysis beyond its typical limits. The load sharing behavior between the piles and the SIPS foundation base was also evaluated.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 0.006 |
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".