MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4312249496 · doi:10.1115/omae2022-78578

Evaluation of Hydrodynamic Loads on a Concrete Gravity-Based Offshore Structure in Extreme Waves

2022· article· en· W4312249496 on OpenAlexaffabout
M. Hasanat Zaman, Ayhan Akintürk

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEarthquake and Tsunami Effects
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council CanadaCommunity Sector Council Newfoundland and Labrador
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSubmarine pipelineMomentum (technical analysis)Finite element methodAmplitudeWind waveDiffractionGeologyComputationComputer simulationConservation of massMechanicsMarine engineeringPhysicsEngineeringGeotechnical engineeringStructural engineeringComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The oil and gas companies extended their activities in the offshore area of the North Seas. The presence of extreme environmental waves imparts extra risks to the operations of the offshore fixed and floating structures in these areas. The operation and safety of these offshore structures are considerably disturbed during the propagation of large waves over the region. The Newfoundland coast experienced very high waves during an intense ever storm in 2018 that brought waves with very large wave heights at various locations. This paper reports the loadings of such high waves on the shaft of a Gravity-Based Structure (GBS). A 3D non-linear dispersive mass, momentum, and energy model (MME) with second-order in wave amplitudes, and OrcaFlex™, a commercial numerical tool are used for the simulation of loads on the structure. The 3D numerical model describes the characteristics of the wavefield in terms of mass, momentum, and energy flux conservation equations. OrcaFlex™ is a 3D non-linear time-domain finite element implicit and explicit software that uses lumped mass elements to simplify equations, has diffraction capability, and makes the computation efficient. In the simulations, parameters for incident wave conditions are varied systematically to study various cases and data comparisons between the two numerical simulators are made. The geometry of the GBS was kept constant. The water depth is assumed to be 80m and the shaft length is 95m with a diameter of 30m. The simulation is carried out for 3 hours in each case. New data and information that would be produced from this work are important for possible use in the design method of a GBS and thus increase structural and operational safety exclusively in the harsh environment or in the existence of freak waves.

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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.666

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.205 · 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
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEarthquake and Tsunami EffectsFrench-language works237,207