MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4366777061 · doi:10.4043/32478-ms

SIIBED: Subsea Ice Interaction Barriers to Energy Development – Overview

2023· article· en· W4366777061 on OpenAlex
Freeman Ralph, Tony King, Chad Fowlow, Chad Butler, Mike Paulin, Jason Price, Peter Ogban

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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueOffshore Technology Conference · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground Structures
Canadian institutionsJuvenile Diabetes Research FoundationIntecsea (Canada)Centre For Cold Ocean Resources Engineering
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSubseaEngineeringMarine engineeringContext (archaeology)Pipeline transportMechanical engineeringGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The objective of this paper is to provide an overview of the Subsea Ice Interaction Barriers to Energy Development (SIIBED) project including work on acceptance criteria used in finite element analysis (FEA), physical modelling and risk analysis activities. The overall structure of the SIIBED program and the relationship between the various tasks is presented. SIIBED is a continuation of two previous projects funded by Energy Research & Innovation Newfoundland and Labrador (ERINL): Alternatives to Flowline Trenching (AFT) and Alternatives to Weak Links (AWL). The SIIBED scope was expanded to include subsea cables, reflecting the interest in moving towards electrification of offshore operations. Numerical modelling of iceberg interaction with rigid pipelines, flexible flowlines and cables requires an understanding of elastic/plastic stiffness and stress/deformation limit states. This paper reviews existing technologies, industry standards and best practices. The behavior of rigid pipes in an ice grounding environment is fairly well understood and was reviewed in relation to applications supporting developments in the Beaufort Sea. In contrast, the construction of flexible flowlines is much more complex and variable, and firm guidelines on design strain limits are lacking for the application considered here. Subsea cables are even less well understood. When considering subsea cables and the adoption of limit state design criteria, the model of failure consequences was examined in the context of approximately a 15 second ice-pipe-soil interaction before the iceberg passes over-top. Under loading, the three conductors in an AC cable must maintain separation to prevent electrical arcing. Insulation around a single conductor DC cable must remain intact. It has been observed that, unlike steel pipes that ovalize when compressed restricting access for pigging as well as loss of strength integrity, the cables (particularly the insulation around conductors), bounce back to the original shape. The potential loss of conductivity could not be tested. If cables bounce back, then to prevent arcing, a cable could be de-energized for the short period ice keel interaction and re-energized after the iceberg passes over-top. While a considerable understanding for modeling rigid pipelines against iceberg keel interaction exists, analysis of subsea cables is much less understood. These are, however, now necessary as the oil and gas industry transitions to a net zero carbon footprint or alternative energy sources (e.g. offshore wind power) are developed in ice prone regions. While more testing and verification work is needed, this work suggests that requirements for protecting rigid pipelines may not be appropriate for electrification cables, possibly too, flexible flowlines.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.842
Threshold uncertainty score0.916

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.219 · 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