MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3206442546 · doi:10.1115/omae2021-62818

Numerical Modelling of Ice Rubble Interactions Using Discrete Element Method

2021· article· en· W3206442546 on OpenAlexaff
Lei Liu, Eleanor Bailey, Rocky Taylor, Tony King

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamics
Canadian institutionsCentre For Cold Ocean Resources Engineering
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKeelRubbleDiscrete element methodSeabedGeologyRidgeGeotechnical engineeringMechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A three-dimensional, freeze-bonded, Discrete Element Method (DEM) numerical model has been developed to simulate various ice rubble/ridge interaction scenarios. The numerical model was validated against the physical tests conducted by C-CORE under the Pipeline Ice Risk Assessment and Mitigation (PIRAM) Joint Industry Project. Accurate representation of ice block geometries and sizes distributions was achieved using clumped particles, rather than the traditional DEM spheres. With the use of clumped ice blocks the numerical model was able to characterize the initial keel conditions (macro porosity and freeze bond contacts) and capture interlocking behavior between ice blocks. A DEM gravel seabed model was then introduced to the clumped ice block model to allow for better representation of soil response during the simulated experiments. The main features of these model developments are described in this paper, along with a comparison of simulated results and large scale physical test results. From this work it was concluded that: (1) clumped ice blocks give more representative ice block shapes for an ice keel than spherical ice blocks, which better capture ice block interactions and overall ridge keel properties and behavior; and (2) a DEM model of the seabed gravel provided a better representation of the seabed than was possible with a continuous stiffness plane, which had important implications for modelling the keel-seabed interactions. The development and inclusion of these two new model features were found to significantly improve the accuracy of the DEM model in reproducing physical test results, while still being sufficiently computationally efficient as to allow for simulation of interactions full-scale ice ridges.

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.247 · 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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamics→French-language works237,207→