MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4246053987 · doi:10.2118/149938-pa

Trenching of Pipelines for Protection in Ice Environments

2013· article· en· W4246053987 on OpenAlex
Michael J. Paulin, Damien Humby, Joseph Cocker, Glenn A. Lanan

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueOil and Gas Facilities · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicOffshore Engineering and Technologies
Canadian institutionsIntecsea (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBermKeelPipeline transportPipeline (software)Marine engineeringSubseaEngineeringSubmarine pipelineCurrent (fluid)SeabedGeotechnical engineeringGeologyMining engineeringMechanical engineeringOceanographyStructural engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary Subsea pipelines located in ice environments need to be protected from potential ice gouging (also known as ice scouring) created when a moving ice keel interacts with the seabed. The integrity and operability of the pipeline can be affected by direct contact between the ice keel and the pipeline, or from loading imposed on the pipeline through soil deformation caused by ice gouging. The typical method considered for protecting against the risk of damage caused by ice gouging is through pipeline burial. Conventional methods of pipeline burial use equipment such as ploughs, mechanical trenchers, and jetters, the majority of which have been designed to accomplish a maximum of 2 to 3 m of pipeline burial. Dredges can be used, but they have water depth limitations and limited productivity. Land-based equipment has been used for shore crossings, but is limited to shallow depths where temporary construction berms can be used as a working platform. The capabilities of existing technologies are based on current industry practice developed for pipeline burial in ice-free environments. Pipeline burial requirements have generally been for improved hydrodynamic stability, mechanical protection (e.g., from anchors), controlling pipeline movements (e.g., expansion and buckling) and/or for flow-assurance purposes (reducing heat loss). A 2- to 3-m burial depth has been generally adequate to satisfy these conventional requirements. As developments are proposed for areas that experience relatively deep ice gouging (up to 5 m), burial depth requirements will exceed the capabilities of current pipeline burial technologies. New technologies capable of working in deeper water, achieving greater burial depths, achieving reasonable trenching advance rates, operating in harsh environments, and trenching through variable and difficult seabed soils will be required. This paper highlights the issues and challenges surrounding pipeline trenching and burial in ice-gouge environments. The current state of practice is discussed along with the technology gaps that need to be addressed to prepare for future offshore developments in ice-covered waters where there is the potential for seabed ice gouging.

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.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.957
Threshold uncertainty score0.226

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.170
Teacher spread0.161 · 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