A Simplified Model for Evaluating Strain Demand in a Pipeline Subjected to Longitudinal Ground Movement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A simplified model was developed to calculate the maximum tensile and compressive strains due to a uniform movement of a block of soil in a direction parallel to the pipe axis using a closed-form solution of the governing differential equations. The model employs the theory of plasticity for modelling the pipe material based on normality plastic flow rule, the von Mises yield criterion, and isotropic strain hardening. While the pipe was assumed to have a bilinear, stress-strain curve with strain hardening, the pipe-soil friction was assumed to have an elastic-perfectly plastic force-deformation response. The model accounts for the initial thermal axial strains in the pipe and biaxial state of stress in the pipe due to internal pressure. The model is capable of accommodating pipe bends at the ends of the sliding zone. The relationship between the ground displacement and pipe axial force at each interface of stable and sliding zones was obtained from closed-form solutions of governing differential equations, assuming both the stable and sliding zones are infinitely long. To prevent the overestimation of the axial strains in the pipe, a limiting scenario was considered where the soil was assumed to have yielded over the entire sliding zone. Equilibrium and compatibility equations were used to calculate the pipe axial forces and strains at the two interfaces. The simplified model for longitudinal ground movement was validated against finite element solutions. The validation example presented involves a 20-inch straight pipeline subjected to longitudinal ground movement over slide lengths of 50, 100 and 200 metres, as well as a semi-infinite sliding zone 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.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".