MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1980734421 · doi:10.1139/t08-043

Mobilization of soil loads on buried, polyethylene natural gas pipelines subject to relative axial displacements

2008· article· en· W1980734421 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Lalinda Weerasekara, Dharma Wijewickreme

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground Structures
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPipeline transportGeotechnical engineeringSoil structure interactionCanalisationPolyethyleneFull scaleStructural engineeringGeologyEngineeringMaterials scienceFinite element methodComposite materialMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The performance of buried, medium-density polyethylene (MDPE) pipes subject to movements relative to the soil in the direction of the pipe axis is investigated by full-scale physical model testing conducted using a large soil box. A new closed-form solution was developed to account for the nonlinear material response of MDPE pipes under axial loading, and the analytical results are compared with the results obtained from the full-scale pipe pullout testing. The closed-form solution provides a rational framework to estimate the response of the pipe (i.e., level of strain, force) and the mobilized frictional length along the pipe for a known relative axial pipe movement. The approach, in turn, could be used to estimate the relative axial movements needed for pipe failure, which is an important consideration in the evaluation of field-performance of pipe systems located in areas of potential ground movement. The methodology is an important initial step towards the development of representative axial soil-springs representing complex pipe–soil interaction encountered in relatively extensible, buried polyethylene (PE) pipe systems subject to soil loading arising from ground movements.

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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.179
Threshold uncertainty score0.992

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.199 · 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

Citations31
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Geotechnical JournalSame topicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground StructuresFrench-language works237,207