DOCSLIB.ORG

Download (7MB)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Download (7MB) PRESSURE RIDGE ICE GOUGE MORPHOLOGY AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF A REPRESENTATIVE PHYSICAL ICE KEEL MODEL FOR THE BEAUFORT SEA By © Timothy L. G. Park, P.Eng. A thesis submitted to the School of Graduate Studies in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Engineering Faculty ofEngineering & Applied Science Memorial University ofNewfoundland July 2012 St. John' s Newfoundland & Labrador Canada ABSTRACT Ice gouge experiments have been conducted by numerous authors since the early 1970s. A common theme in nearly all experiments is the use of an idealized prismatic wedge shape model to represent the keel of an iceberg or pressure ridge. In the case of icebergs, it is well known that keel morphology is highly variable. However, for pressure ridge ice keels a common morphology has been recognized. An in-depth study of extreme gouge features in five multi-beam bathymetric datasets, from the Beaufort Sea, has led to the development of a three-dimensional representative model of an ice keel. A qualitative 1g scale model test comparing the representative three-dimensional model to a traditional prismatic wedge was conducted using Beaufort Sea clay. The experiment used a model pipeline to compare the loads from a representative keel to that of an idealized prismatic wedge. The three-dimensional representative model resulted in a lower force/deflection on the pipeline when compared to the traditional prismatic wedge shape model. However, the shape of the representative model keel resulted in proportionately higher stresses being transmitted through the soil than the simple prismatic model. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT I would like to thank my thesis supervisor, Dr. Ryan Phillips at C-CORE, for fust introducing me to the subject of pressure ridge ice gouge morphology, and scale model testing. I would like to thank Dr. Laurie Davis, for bringing me in on the many ice gouge projects while at Fugro Geosurveys Inc. I would like to thank my friend, Dr. Chris Woodworth-Lynas, for his knowledge and help in putting together my thesis; our gouge related conversations were quite entertaining and inspiring. To Dr. Michael Hinchey, thank you for your support in designing and building the ice gouge experiments, your course was invaluable in advancing my work. To my friend, Kenton Pike, for our discussions and collaboration on the ice gouge subject. To Tony King at C-CORE, thank you for all your help and advice. I would like to thank Kevin MacKillop and Steve Blasco of the Geological Survey of Canada (GSC) for their help and insight into the gouge problem, and to the GSC in general for agreeing to let me use the results from the extreme gouge catalogue to further my research. I would like to thank Dr. Jeff Dingler, at BP, for agreeing to let me use the Beaufort Sea soil samples in my experiment. To my supervisor at Fugro Geosurveys Inc., J0m Landva, thank you for giving me the time and support for finishing my coursework, and thesis. Most of all, I would like to thank my wife, Mary, for supporting me through this whole expenence. 11 TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ....................................................................... .......... .. ............. .. .................... .. i ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ............................... ................. .... ......... .. ................................. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................ .......................... .. ........ iii LIST OF TABLES .............................................................................................. .............. v LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................... ........ ..... ........................ v 1.0 INTRODUCTION ......................... ........................... .. ................... ................ 1 1.1 General ............. .. .............................................................................................. .. 1 1.2 Background .... ..................................................................................................... 3 1.2.1 Significance ofthe Beaufort Sea ................ ............. .... ........................... ..... 3 1.2.2 Challenge to Offshore Pipeline Development in the Beaufort Sea ............ 5 1.2.3 A Brief History ofIce Keel Models Used in Gouge Experiments .............. 7 1.3 Current Work ..................... ...... .. ....................... ................................ ...... ......... 12 1.3.1 Justification ofStudy ............................................................................ ..... 12 1.3.2 Purpose ofthis Thesis ......................... ...................................... .. ............... 14 1.3.3 Thesis Outline ....................... ...................................................................... 15 2.0 FACTORS AFFECTING ICE GOUGE MORPHOLOGY .. ................... 16 2.1 General ... ..... ........................... .. ........................................ .. ............................... 16 2.2 Gouge Factors .... .............................................. .......................................... .... ... 17 2.2.1 Ice Ridge Morphology ................................................................................ 17 2.2.2 Soil Characteristics ............. ........ .. .. .................................... ................ ....... 23 2.2.3 Extreme Wind Events ............................................... ......................... ......... 29 2.2.4 Ice Zonation .................................................... .................................... ....... 31 2.3 Discussion ................................................ .......................................................... 3 8 3.0 EXTREME GOUGE MORPHOLOGY STUDY ...................................... 39 3.1 Introduction ................................................................................. .. ................... 39 3.2 Methodology ................................................. ................... .................................. 43 3.2.1 Overview .. ............................................. ......................... .. ........................... 43 3.2.2 Raster Data .......................................................................................... ....... 44 3.2.3 ArcMap ............ .. .............................................................................. ........... 45 3.2.4 ArcScene ............................ .......... .................... ........ ................................... 49 3.3 Gouge 1 Study .................... ........ ...... .. ............................................................... 50 3.3.1 Overview ................ .. .... ............................................................................ ... 50 3.3.2 Gouge 1- Leg A .......................................................................................... 53 3.3.3 Gouge 1- Direction Change I ................................................................... 55 3.3.4 Gouge I -Leg B ............... ........................................ ................................... 59 3.3.5 Gouge I -Leg C ....................................................................... .............. .. ... 62 3.3.6 Gouge I - Termination Mound ......................... .................................... .. ... 64 3.4 Gouge 2 Study .................. ................ .. .............. .................................... ............. 67 3.4.I Overview .... .... ... ............ ....... .................... ..... ....................................... ..... .. 67 3.4.2 Gouge 2 -Direction Change I ..................................................... ... ........... 70 3.4.3 Gouge 2 -Leg A ................................................................................. ......... 72 lll 3.4.4 Gouge 2- Direction Change 2 ............... .................................................... 74 3.5 Gouge 3 Study .................... .................... ............. ......................... ............. .. ...... 77 3.5.1 Overview ............................................................ .. ........................ ............... 77 3.5.2 Gouge 3- Transition Zone 1 ....................................... ............. ................ .. 80 3.5.3 Gouge 3- Transition Zone 2 ............................. .. .. .. ................................... 81 3.5.4 Gouge 3- Transition Zone 3 ............................................ ........... ............... 84 3.5.5 Gouge 3- Termination Point ......................................... ........................... 85 3.6 Gouge 4 Study ................................................................. ................... ........ ....... 88 3.6.1 Overview ..................................................................................................... 88 3.6.2 Gouge 4- Transition Zone 1 ................. .. ...... ..... .. ...................................... 91 3.6.3 Gouge 4- Direction Change 1 ................. ............. ............................ .. ..... .. 92 3.6.4 Gouge 4- Transition Zone 2 .. .. ........... ................................................ ....... 94 3.6.5 Gouge 4- Rotation Point .................................... .................................. ..... 96 3.7 Gouge 5 Study .................................................................................... ............... 98 3. 7.1 Overview .......................................... ................. ....................... ............ ....... 98 3. 7.3
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Dicionarioct.Pdf
    McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Earth Science Second Edition McGraw-Hill New York Chicago San Francisco Lisbon London Madrid Mexico City Milan New Delhi San Juan Seoul Singapore Sydney Toronto Copyright © 2003 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. Manufactured in the United States of America. Except as permitted under the United States Copyright Act of 1976, no part of this publication may be repro- duced or distributed in any form or by any means, or stored in a database or retrieval system, without the prior written permission of the publisher. 0-07-141798-2 The material in this eBook also appears in the print version of this title: 0-07-141045-7 All trademarks are trademarks of their respective owners. Rather than put a trademark symbol after every occurrence of a trademarked name, we use names in an editorial fashion only, and to the benefit of the trademark owner, with no intention of infringement of the trademark. Where such designations appear in this book, they have been printed with initial caps. McGraw-Hill eBooks are available at special quantity discounts to use as premiums and sales promotions, or for use in corporate training programs. For more information, please contact George Hoare, Special Sales, at [email protected] or (212) 904-4069. TERMS OF USE This is a copyrighted work and The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. (“McGraw- Hill”) and its licensors reserve all rights in and to the work. Use of this work is subject to these terms. Except as permitted under the Copyright Act of 1976 and the right to store and retrieve one copy of the work, you may not decom- pile, disassemble, reverse engineer, reproduce, modify, create derivative works based upon, transmit, distribute, disseminate, sell, publish or sublicense the work or any part of it without McGraw-Hill’s prior consent.
    [Show full text]
  • Beltcov Andrei.Pdf (5.892Mb)
    Faculty of Science and Technology MASTER’S THESIS Study program/ Specialization: Spring semester, 2016 Offshore Technology/ Marine and Subsea Technology Open Writer: Andrei Y. Beltcov ………………………………………… (Writer’s signature) Faculty supervisor: Professor Ove Tobias Gudmestad (University of Stavanger) External supervisor(s): Professor Anatoly Borisovich Zolotukhin (Gubkin University) Title of thesis: «Development concepts for Sakhalin's offshore field development» Credits (ECTS):30 Key words: Pages: 15 + enclosure: 4 Concept development, Concept selection, Sakhalin’s Island offshore development, Concept selection criteria. Stavanger, June, 15, 2016 Abstract When a company undertakes to develop an oilfield, certain activities represent the foundation of the development, ranging from information about the metocean conditions at the site to marketing. The concept phase itself includes screening of concepts, selection of concept and concept development. Use of engineering data and calculations that represents a feasibility study of offshore oil and gas field is essentially the screening of concepts. The selection of concept consists of finding a solution that would meet world technical, environmental and safety demands. Despite the fact that Sakhalin Island shelf contains enormous hydrocarbon reserves, it is also a very environmentally sensitive region. High environmental risks and extreme weather conditions entail high capital expenditures, which put significant burden of responsibility on the project team during the development concept stage. This is of great importance during the early stages of concept selection. Selecting the optimum Sakhalin Shelf development concept is the aim of my thesis. Significance in the concept selection chain affects selection of various parameters affecting the optimum development concept and subsequent prioritization. Special attention is paid to challenges and peculiarities that can be faced at the Sakhalin Region and could affect the concept of field development.
    [Show full text]
  • Challenges of Dredging in the Arctic and Other Deep Ocean Locations
    Proceedings of Western Dredging Association and Texas A&M University Center for Dredging Studies' "Dredging Summit and Expo 2015" CHALLENGES OF DREDGING IN THE ARCTIC AND OTHER DEEP OCEAN LOCATIONS R. E. Randall1 and C. K. Jin2 ABSTRACT Dredging in the Arctic Ocean is challenging due to ice cover, permafrost, iceberg scour, whaling season, ice gouging, and remote location. In the deep ocean 1000 m (3280 ft), dredging is a technique for recovering minerals from the deep ocean waters where water depth is a major challenge for the pumping system. Another application for dredging in the deep ocean and beneath ice covered waters is for recovering petroleum reserves. This paper reviews the recent literature of current systems used for deep ocean mining and the need for developing oil and gas development beneath ice covered water. Conceptual ideas are discussed for overcoming the dredging challenges that include the use of remotely operated vehicles, trenchers, hopper dredges and self-propelled cutter suction dredges. Keywords: Dredging, trenching, arctic, ocean mining, deep water. INTRODUCTION The demand for essential industrial resources, such as oil and gas, has been increasing, which accelerates the decrease in such resources on land and in coastal regions. Accordingly, expanding the exploration to harsh environmental regions, especially the Arctic and deep oceans, turns out to be a promising solution since they are far less developed. For example, it is reported that the area north of the Arctic Circle comprises 13% and 30% of the undiscovered oil and gas in the world, respectively (Gautier et al. 2009). As one of the most important applications in a severe ocean environment, dredging has been utilized to excavate material and minerals, or even improve the environment (Bray et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Iceberg 1 Iceberg
    Iceberg 1 Iceberg For other uses, see Iceberg (disambiguation). An iceberg is a large piece of freshwater ice that has broken off a glacier or an ice shelf and is floating freely in open water. It may subsequently become frozen into pack ice (one form of sea ice). As it drifts into shallower waters, it may come into contact with the seabed, a process referred to as seabed gouging by ice. Etymology The word "iceberg" is a partial loan translation from Dutch ijsberg, literally meaning ice mountain, cognate to Danish isbjerg, German Eisberg, Low Saxon Iesbarg and Iceberg at Baffin Bay, Greenland Swedish isberg. Overview Because the density of pure ice is about 920 kg/m³, and that of seawater about 1025 kg/m³, typically only one-tenth of the volume of an iceberg is above water. The shape of the underwater portion can be difficult to judge by looking at the portion above the surface. This has led to the expression "tip of the iceberg", for a problem or difficulty that is only a small manifestation of a larger problem. Icebergs generally range from 1 to 75 metres (3.3 to 246.1 ft) above sea level and weigh 100,000 to 200,000 metric tons (110,000 to 220,000 short tons). The largest known iceberg in the North Atlantic was 168 metres (551 ft) above sea level, reported by the USCG icebreaker East Wind in 1958, making it the height of a 55-story building. These icebergs originate from the glaciers of western Greenland and may have an interior temperature of −15 to −20 °C (5 to −4 °F).
    [Show full text]
  • Protecting Offshore Pipelines Against Drifting Ice: a Discussion on Standards and Guidelines Barrette, Paul; Sudom, Denise; Babaei, Hossein
    NRC Publications Archive Archives des publications du CNRC Protecting offshore pipelines against drifting ice: a discussion on standards and guidelines Barrette, Paul; Sudom, Denise; Babaei, Hossein This publication could be one of several versions: author’s original, accepted manuscript or the publisher’s version. / La version de cette publication peut être l’une des suivantes : la version prépublication de l’auteur, la version acceptée du manuscrit ou la version de l’éditeur. For the publisher’s version, please access the DOI link below./ Pour consulter la version de l’éditeur, utilisez le lien DOI ci-dessous. Publisher’s version / Version de l'éditeur: https://doi.org/10.1115/OMAE2015-42090 Proceedings of the ASME 2015 34th International Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering, OMAE2015, May 31-June 5, 2015, St. John's, Newfoundland, Canada, 2015-05-31 NRC Publications Record / Notice d'Archives des publications de CNRC: https://nrc-publications.canada.ca/eng/view/object/?id=ae5751ff-866f-46fd-b271-2480437e6fe4 https://publications-cnrc.canada.ca/fra/voir/objet/?id=ae5751ff-866f-46fd-b271-2480437e6fe4 Access and use of this website and the material on it are subject to the Terms and Conditions set forth at https://nrc-publications.canada.ca/eng/copyright READ THESE TERMS AND CONDITIONS CAREFULLY BEFORE USING THIS WEBSITE. L’accès à ce site Web et l’utilisation de son contenu sont assujettis aux conditions présentées dans le site https://publications-cnrc.canada.ca/fra/droits LISEZ CES CONDITIONS ATTENTIVEMENT AVANT D’UTILISER CE SITE WEB. Questions? Contact the NRC Publications Archive team at [email protected].
    [Show full text]
  • THE RESPONSE of DENSE SAND to the ICE GOUGING EVENT By
    THE RESPONSE OF DENSE SAND TO THE ICE GOUGING EVENT by © Afrouz Nematzadeh A Thesis submitted to the School of Graduate Studies in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Masters of Engineering Faculty of Engineering and Applied Science Memorial University of Newfoundland May 2019 St. John's Newfoundland Canada ABSTRACT The integrity of subsea pipelines in the Arctic regions are threatened by ice-related subsea geohazard. A common practice for physical protection of the pipelines against the ice loads is to burying them inside the subsea trenches. However, determining the minimum burial depth of the pipeline to minimize the construction cost is a challenging design aspect of Arctic offshore pipelines. This requires an in-depth understanding of the ice-soil-pipe interaction, which in turn is significantly affected by ice-soil interaction and the foucuse of this thesis. Mohr-Coulomb soil model is conventionally used for continuum modeling of dense sand by adopting the constant friction and dilation angles. However, this approach neglects the pre-peak hardening and the post-peak softening behavior of dense sand. In this study, two smart self-correcting soil models were incorporated into an advanced Coupled Eulerian- Lagrangian (CEL) analysis to automatically update the shear strength parameters by the magnitude of plastic strains. The analysis was conducted using ABAQUS/ Explicit scheme incorporating the soil model that was coded into a user-defined subroutine. The soil strength parameters are self- corrected to model the nonlinear hardening, softening and pressure dependency behavior of dense sand by considering the ice keel bearing pressure and octahedral shear strain.
    [Show full text]
  • Numerical Modeling of Coupled Seabed Scour and Pipe Interaction ⇑ Hossein Fadaifard, John L
    International Journal of Solids and Structures 51 (2014) 3449–3460 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect International Journal of Solids and Structures journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijsolstr Numerical modeling of coupled seabed scour and pipe interaction ⇑ Hossein Fadaifard, John L. Tassoulas Department of Civil, Architectural, and Environmental Engineering, The University of Texas at Austin, Structural Engineering, Mechanics, and Materials, 301 E Dean Keeton St., Stop C1748, Austin, TX 78712-1068, USA article info abstract Article history: Scouring of the seabed by ice masses poses great threat to structural integrity and safety of buried Received 8 December 2013 structures such as oil and gas pipes. Large ridge motions and large seabed deformations complicate study Received in revised form 20 April 2014 of the seabed scouring and pipe interaction using classical Lagrangian methods. We present a new Available online 21 June 2014 numerical approach for modeling the coupled seabed scour problem and its interaction with embedded marine pipes. In our work, we overcome the common issues associated with finite deformation inher- Keywords: ently present within the seabed scour problem using a rheological approach for soil flow. The seabed Seabed scouring is modeled as a viscous non-Newtonian fluid, and its interface described implicitly through a level-set Soil flow function. The history-independent model allows for large displacements and deformations of the ridge Soil–structure interaction Arbitrary Lagrangian Eulerian and seabed, respectively. Numerical examples are presented to demonstrate the capabilities of the method with regard to seabed scouring and the ensuing large soil deformation. Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
    [Show full text]
  • 2017 Rules of Subsea Pipelines-Arial 1..158
    RUSSIAN MARITIME REGISTER OF SHIPPING Corr. RULES FOR THE CLASSIFICATION AND CONSTRUCTION OF SUBSEA PIPELINES Saint-Petersburg 2017 The Rules for the Classification and Construction of Subsea Pipelines of Russian Maritime Register of Shipping have been approved in accordance with the established approval procedure and come into force on 1 July 2017. The Rules cover all technical aspects of design and construction of offshore subsea pipelines. In development of the Rules experience of other classification societies has been taken into consideration. ISBN 978-5-89331-260-7 © Российский морской регистр судоходства, 2017 CONTENTS PART I. SUBSEA PIPELINES 7 Corrosion protection 73 7.1 General 73 1 General 5 7.2 Protection against internal corrosion 73 1.1 Scope of application 5 7.3 Protection against external corrosion 74 1.2 Terms and definitions 5 7.4 Electrochemical protection 76 1.3 Classification 6 7.5 Electrical insulating joints 80 1.4 Scope of surveys 7 7.6 Corrosion monitoring systems 81 1.5 Technical documentation 9 8 Pipeline installation and testing 82 2 Design loads acting on subsea pipelines . 12 8.1 General 82 2.1 General 12 8.2 Pipeline routes and seabed soils 82 2.2 Design pressure 12 8.3 Additional measures for protection of the pipeline 2.3 Temperature effects 13 in the areas of intense ice gouging 85 2.4 Weight effects 13 8.4 Marine operations for pipeline laying .... 87 2.5 Current loads 13 8.5 Methods of pipeline laying on seabed .... 88 2.6 Wave loads and wind loads 14 8.6 Subsea pipeline testing by pressure 90 2.7 Variable hydrodynamic loads 14 9 Maintenance and repair 92 2.8 Seismic loads 15 9.1 Maintenance 92 3 Strength of subsea pipelines 16 9.2 Repair of subsea pipelines 93 3.1 General 16 10 Safety assessment 95 3.2 Determination of the steel pipeline wall thickness 16 10.1 Scope of application 95 3.3 Steel subsea pipeline calculations for buckling 10.2 Terms, definitions and explanations 95 (collapse) under hydrostatic pressure ...
    [Show full text]
  • OIL SPILL PREVENTION and RESPONSE in the U.S. ARCTIC
    OIL SPILL PREVENTION and RESPONSE IN THE U.S. ARCTIC OCEAN Unexamined Risks, Unacceptable Consequences (Photo credits for cover, clockwise from le!: Oil rig, Stockbyte/Getty Images; spectacled eider, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; children, Burgess Blevins/Getty Images; bearded seal, Brendan Kelly. Background ice photo: Nuka Research and Planning LLC.) OIL SPILL PREVENTION and RESPONSE IN THE U.S. ARCTIC OCEAN: Unexamined Risks, Unacceptable Consequences November 2010 Commissioned by: Report Prepared by: U.S. Arctic Program, Pew Environment Group Nuka Research and Planning Group, LLC Pearson Consulting, LLC Scientific peer review conducted by three experts in oil spill response, oceanography and Arctic marine ecology. OIL SPILL PREVENTION and RESPONSE IN THE U.S. ARCTIC: Unexamined Risks, Unacceptable Consequences Acknowledgments We wish to thank three individuals for reviewing this report in its !nal draft form: Nancy Bird, Prince William Sound Science Center; Rolf Gradinger, University of Alaska Fairbanks; and one anonymous reviewer. These individuals were asked to review the draft because of their diverse perspectives and technical expertise. The purpose of this independent review was to provide candid and critical comments on the analysis and reasoning contained in the report to assist the Pew Environment Group in making it as sound as possible. Although these reviewers provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations, nor did they see the !nal report before its release. We also wish to thank the many people who helped make this report possible: • Nuka Research and Planning Group LLC sta", especially lead authors Elise De Cola and Tim Robertson, and designer Kathleen George.
    [Show full text]
  • Tracking Greenland Icebergs
    IARJSET ISSN (Online) 2393-8021 ISSN (Print) 2394-1588 International Advanced Research Journal in Science, Engineering and Technology Vol. 3, Issue 4, April 2016 Tracking Greenland Icebergs K. Suharsha1, K. Rangahemanth Kumar2, Dr. P. Venkatesan3 UG Scholar, ECE Department, SCSVMV University, Kanchipuram, India1, 2 Associate Professor, ECE Department, SCSVMV University Kanchipuram, India3 Abstract: We propose in this paper a few information about tracking Greenland icebergs and to avoid accidents for ships and for easy transportation in oceans. An iceberg or ice mountain is a large piece of fresh water ice that has broken off a glacier or an ice shelf and is floating freely in open water, may subsequently become frozen into pack ice (one form of sea ice). As it drifts into shallower waters, it may come into contact with the seabed, a process referred to as seabed gouging by ice. Density of pure ice is about 920 kg/m³, and that of sea water about 1025 kg/m³, typically only one-tenth of the volume of an iceberg is above water (due to Archimedes's Principle). The shape of the underwater portion can be difficult to judge by looking at the portion above the surface. This has led to the expression "tip of the iceberg ", for a problem or difficulty that is only a small manifestation of a larger problem. Keywords: Icebergs, density, tip of iceberg, Archimedes’ principle. I. INTRODUCTION Icebergs generally range from 1 to 75 metres (3.3 to or Filchner-Ronne Ice Shelf, are typically tabular. The 246.1 ft) above sea level and weigh 100,000 to 200,000 largest icebergs in the world are formed this way.
    [Show full text]
  • Ice Scour and Gouging Effects with Respect to Pipeline and Wellhead Prepared For: BSEE Doc Ref: 100100.01.PL.REP.004 Rev: 0 Date: July 2015
    Ice Scour and Gouging Effects with Respect to Pipeline and Wellhead Prepared for: BSEE Doc Ref: 100100.01.PL.REP.004 Rev: 0 Date: July 2015 Final Report This final report has been reviewed by the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) and approved for publication. Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the views and policies of the BSEE, nor does mention of the trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. This study was funded by the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE), U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. under Contract E14PC00011. Ice Scour and Gouging Effects with Respect to Pipeline and Wellhead Final Report Executive Summary Researchers use several approaches to generate information on scouring phenomena and gain understanding of seabed response to ice gouging. These approaches can be divided into two categories: observations of real events and artificial simulations. Observation of real events involves performing extensive site surveys (seabed scanning), identifying gouging characteristics, and locating areas with high gouging occurrence rates. Surveying has challenging technical and economical limitations, as discussed in the first task of this study. Artificial simulations can be useful tools to bridge the knowledge gaps and provide better understanding of the complexity of gouging processes. The advantage of simulations over field observations is that simulations allow full control of the test parameters (e.g., soil type, keel width and depth, attack angle, ice and subsea structure properties) that dictate the ice gouging response. Artificial simulations are classified into two types: • Physical testing • Numerical simulation Physical tests are conducted in the field or in laboratory settings using small– or large– scale instrumental setups.
    [Show full text]
  • Geophysical and Geotechnical Investigation Methodology Assessment for Siting Renewable Energy Facilities on the Atlantic OCS
    OCS Study BOEM 2017-049 Geophysical and Geotechnical Investigation Methodology Assessment for Siting Renewable Energy Facilities on the Atlantic OCS US Department of the Interior Bureau of Ocean Energy Management Office of Renewable Energy Programs OCS Study BOEM 2017-049 Geophysical and Geotechnical Investigation Methodology Assessment for Siting Renewable Energy Facilities on the Atlantic OCS February 2017 Prepared under BOEM Contract M15PX00051 by Fugro Marine GeoServices, Inc. 101 West Main Street Suite 350 Norfolk, Virginia 23510 US Department of the Interior Bureau of Ocean Energy Management Office of Renewable Energy Programs OCS Study BOEM 2017-049 DISCLAIMER Study concept, oversight, and funding were provided by the US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), Environmental Studies Program, Washington, DC, under Contract Number M15PX00051. This report has been technically reviewed by BOEM, and it has been approved for publication. The views and conclusions contained in this document are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as representing the opinions or policies of the US Government, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. REPORT AVAILABILITY To download a PDF file of this report, go to the US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management Renewable Energy Environmental Studies webpage (http://www.boem.gov/Environmental- Studies-EnvData/). The report is also available at the National Technical Reports Library at https://ntrl.ntis.gov/NTRL/. CITATION Fugro Marine GeoServices Inc. 2017. Geophysical and Geotechnical Investigation Methodology Assessment for Siting Renewable Energy Facilities on the Atlantic OCS. US Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Office of Renewable Energy Programs, Herndon.
    [Show full text]