MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4366778452 · doi:10.4043/32587-ms

SIIBED: Development of Numerical Models for Ice Loads on a Subsea Pipeline

2023· article· en· W4366778452 on OpenAlexaff
Mark Fuglem, Jan Thijssen, Soroosh Afzali, Igor Gribanov, Rocky Taylor, J. Barrett

Bibliographic record

VenueOffshore Technology Conference · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground Structures
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of NewfoundlandCentre For Cold Ocean Resources Engineering
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSubseaKeelMarine engineeringFinite element methodSubmarine pipelineSeabedTraverseGeotechnical engineeringOffshore geotechnical engineeringSea iceStructural engineeringGeologyPipeline transportEnvironmental scienceEngineeringMechanical engineeringOceanographyGeodesy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract When designing subsea pipelines, flowlines or cables to traverse shallow offshore regions with icebergs, iceberg keel interactions may be of concern. Given sufficiently low contact rates, the possibility of laying the pipe or cable on the seabed without burial may be an option. Consideration is then needed regarding possible denting, buckling, or lateral forces which can result in high axial tensions. In previous analyses of keel interactions, the ice keels have been treated as rigid, under the assumption that the ice strength is significantly higher than the soil strength. Recent studies have shown that under rapid loading, soil resistance can be significantly higher than previously considered, while conservatisms in estimates of ice strength have been reduced over time. As a result, ice-pipe-soil interactions are being reassessed as part of a study "SIIBED: Subsea Ice Interaction Barriers to Energy Development" (Ralph et al., 2023). This paper discusses background and progress on one component of that study, the development of improved ice strength inputs for an overall ice-pipe-soil finite element model (Barrett et al., 2023). The paper includes a review of relevant literature and describes the use of different finite-element (FEA) techniques to better understand relevant ice failure processes. Calibration of the models is largely based on the results of a medium-scale test program using a novel test frame, RHITA (Rapid-High-capacity-Impact-Testing-Apparatus), which was designed and built especially for the project.

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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.889
Threshold uncertainty score0.772

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.215 · 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

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOffshore Technology ConferenceSame topicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground StructuresFrench-language works237,207