Evaluation of horizontal submarine slide impact force on pipeline via a modified hybrid geotechnical – fluid dynamics framework
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There are situations in offshore energy development where potential impact forces between submarine slides and pipelines need to be estimated. The horizontal slide – pipeline impact force, parallel to the main travel direction of the sliding mass and normal to the pipeline axis, is generally dominant compared with other force components and hence of particular concern. In practice, pipelines may be suspended at varying distances above the seabed (gap) and existing methods do not consider how this will affect the horizontal slide – pipeline forces. This paper investigates the effects of pipeline–seabed gap and pipeline diameter on the horizontal slide – pipeline impact force via 181 computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulations at Reynolds numbers of 0.36–287. Results show that variation in the pipeline–seabed gap and pipeline diameter alters the slide mass flow behaviour as it flows past the pipeline and hence the impact force when the pipeline–seabed gap is below a critical value. A modified hybrid geotechnical – fluid dynamics framework for estimating the horizontal impact force is proposed by considering the effects of the pipeline–seabed gap and pipeline diameter, which is validated with existing experimental datasets.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".