Numerical Simulation of Free-end Effects on Local Scour Around a Full-scale Subsea Hydrogen Storage Accumulator
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Green hydrogen production is an emerging pathway aimed at substituting the exploitation of offshore renewable energies and ultimately resulting in the decarbonization of global economies. Large-scale hydrogen storage is a critical link in achieving this. Subsea hydrogen storage provides several advantages over conventional storage, such as near-isothermal and isobaric conditions. However, local scour around the subsea hydrogen storage accumulator may degrade the stability of anchoring. In this study, the local scour characteristics around low-aspect-ratio subsea hydrogen storage accumulators with different free ends, namely flat tip (FT), tip with filleted edges (FET), and approximate hemispherical tip (AHT), are investigated. The numerical simulation of the interaction between accumulators, ocean currents, and the seabed is conducted using the large eddy simulation (LES) model and the sediment scour model. The shapes of scour pits around the three accumulators, the scour time history in different directions, and the spatial distribution of the scour depth are compared and analyzed. The equilibrium scour depth and characteristic time scale are quantified. The results indicate that the shapes of the scour pits around the three accumulators exhibit a horseshoe distribution. The scour processes and spatial distributions of sediment in different directions revealed certain differences between the sediment scour and accumulation processes, but the scour change trends are relatively consistent. The flow diagram of the transient scour shows that the horseshoe vortex has the smallest influence range upstream of the AHT accumulator, but the downstream downwash flow is highly significant. The equilibrium scour depths of the three accumulators are −0.49 (FT), −0.41 (FET) and −0.35 (AHT), respectively, and the scour characteristic time scale gradually increases. These results illustrate that the design of the AHT accumulator has an inhibitory effect on local scour. The scour depth corresponding to the characteristic time scales of the three accumulators can reach 60%–65% of the equilibrium scour depth.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".