MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2941527200 · doi:10.4043/29276-ms

Efficient Design and Execution of Site Investigations for Offshore Wind Farms: Learning from Experience

2019· article· en· W2941527200 on OpenAlexaff
Sean Daniel Pearce, Chris Kilsby, Felix Jonathon King, Lewis Jones

Bibliographic record

VenueOffshore Technology Conference · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological Modeling and Analysis
Canadian institutionsSNC-Lavalin (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOffshore wind powerScope (computer science)Process (computing)CertificationEngineeringEngineering design processSubmarine pipelineConstruction engineeringSystems engineeringComputer scienceWind power

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This paper demonstrates how a phased site investigation approach complements the design process for offshore wind farms. Examples are given showing how three-dimensional (3D) engineering ground models and real-time data analysis have been utilized by integrated project teams to maximize efficiencies, achieve cost and program savings, and reduce risk. In general, the aim of a site investigation should be to ensure that: Sufficient ground data is obtained for design, certification, and construction;Data collected is fit for purpose and fully integrated; andA comprehensive interpretation can be carried out with consideration of engineering design and construction requirements. In the authors’ experience, offshore site investigations are most effective when a ‘geoteam’ (an integrated team of ground specialists including geologists, geotechnical engineers, geophysicists, and others) is assembled at an early stage in the project and carries out early optioneering studies followed by scoping, supervision, and interpretation of a phased site investigation program. Crucially, the geoteam must be able to read and communicate the ground from a designer's perspective and appreciate the Client's constraints and requirements. If they do this effectively, the geoteam will be able to scope a more efficient, targeted site investigation, and provide almost live updates to the engineering ground model. The model can in turn be used to inform real-time decisions being made by the developer, their offshore site investigation representative (Client Representative), and the wind farm's designer. Consideration of the 3D ground conditions is paramount and should always be combined with an appreciation of the site's geological history and earth surface processes to assess how geological variability and ground hazards may affect design. This will provide strong justification for the scope of site investigation works. While the UK and European wind farm market is maturing, with the first offshore wind farm in the UK constructed in the year 2000, the US market is currently in a period of rapid early development. Drawing on considerable experience gained from work in the UK and Europe, the authors present a designer's perspective of site investigation, describing lessons learnt from the scoping, execution, and interpretation of numerous site investigations for offshore wind farms.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.755
Threshold uncertainty score0.426

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.195 · 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 teacher head, 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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOffshore Technology ConferenceSame topicGeological Modeling and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207