MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7132554985

Arctic LNG carrier structural risk analysis for iceberg collisions

2017· article· en· W7132554985 on OpenAlex

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueNPARC · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Integrity and Reliability Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIcebergHullArcticRange (aeronautics)The arcticFinite element methodPerpendicularLong-term prediction
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Structural risk analysis for a new 172,600 m3 Arctic LNG Carrier was carried out. Finite element software, LS-DYNA, was used for the analysis. Three different iceberg masses were used: 3,320 ton, 6,640 ton and 10,000 ton. Six impact simulations were conducted for the condition where no water was present where the vessel forward speed was ~19.5 kt and the iceberg speed was 5 kt perpendicular to the tracking line of the ship. Impacts were targeted on specific areas of the vessel’s bow section. Bell-shaped icebergs, specified by DSME, and more realistic vase-shaped icebergs, developed by NRC, were used for the simulations. The maximum contact force that was measured was in the 80 - 90 MN range for the 10,000 ton iceberg for either shape. The maximum deflections of the outer and inner hulls for these cases were -263.9 mm and -29.5 mm respectively. Two simulations using the 10,000 ton NRC vase-shaped iceberg and DSME bell-shaped iceberg were conducted where water, and associated hydrodynamics, was included. For these wet-case simulations the vessel speed was ~19.5 kt and the maximum impact force was in the same approximate range as the dry-case simulations. The outer and inner hull deflections for the wet-case simulations were significantly higher than those for the dry case because the deformable hull section was less constrained and consequently more flexible than the actual case corresponding to the dry-case simulations. Ice contact areas and average pressures were determined for seven cases. All of the simulations generated sliding-load impacts. No rupturing/tearing of the outer hull was observed for any case.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.123
Threshold uncertainty score0.910

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.249 · 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