MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1978820033 · doi:10.1115/ipc2010-31111

Response of Buried Plastic Pipelines Subject to Lateral Ground Movement

2010· article· en· W1978820033 on OpenAlexaff
Lalinda Weerasekara, Dharma Wijewickreme

Bibliographic record

Venue2010 8th International Pipeline Conference, Volume 1 · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground Structures
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPipeline transportPipeline (software)Tension (geology)BendingStructural engineeringPerpendicularNonlinear systemStress (linguistics)Geotechnical engineeringGeologyMaterials scienceEngineeringMechanical engineeringUltimate tensile strengthComposite materialGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The performance of pipelines in areas prone to ground deformations is a major concern for utility owners since the failures of such pipeline systems could cause property damage and even human losses, in addition to business disruption. An analytical solution to determine the response of plastic pipelines subject to abrupt relative ground movement occurring perpendicular to the pipe axis is presented herein. The method accounts for the combined impacts of tension and bending in a pipe segment. Furthermore, the model considers the nonlinear stress-strain behavior of the pipe material and employs an advanced analytical model to calculate the frictional force development along the pipeline. The results obtained from this analytical approach are validated by comparing with the results obtained from a numerical model using soil-spring analysis and the actual viscoelastic material behavior for the pipe material.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.216 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations1
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue2010 8th International Pipeline Conference, Volume 1Same topicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground StructuresFrench-language works237,207