MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2032022253 · doi:10.4043/23735-ms

Evaluation of Lateral Vertical Pipeline/Soil Interactions

2012· article· en· W2032022253 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueOTC Arctic Technology Conference · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground Structures
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaResearch and Development Corporation of Newfoundland and Labrador
KeywordsGeotechnical engineeringGeologyPipeline transportStructural engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Pipeline systems are integral components of the system infrastructure forthe transport of hydrocarbon resources. In arctic and harsh environments, thesepipelines may be subject to large deformation geohazards. Pipeline/soilinteraction events are often examined using a structural pipe/spring model. This approach does not account for more realistic soil constitutive behaviour, soil deformation mechanisms and effects of soil load transfer on pipelinemechanical response. This paper examines pipe/soil interaction events duringoblique lateral-vertical soil movements using plane strain finite elementanalysis. The results from this study provide a technical framework to assessthe effects of geotechnical loads on buried pipelines, highlight key parametersinfluencing soil yield envelopes, and identify soil failure mechanisms foroblique pipe/soil interaction events that can be used in the design of buriedpipelines for large deformation geohazards. The results may be used tobenchmark more complex loading events, such as coupled ice keel/seabed/pipelineinteraction, that has limited physical basis for validation. Introduction Current engineering practice recommends the use of structural beam/springmodels to simulate pipeline/soil interaction events for the prediction ofpipeline mechanical response (e.g. ALA, 2002; Honegger and Nyman, 2004). The" continuum" soil behaviour is idealised by a series of discrete, independent, orthogonal springs representing the distributed mechanical response along theaxial, lateral and vertical pipe axes. The soil spring load-displacementrelationship is generally defined by bilinear or hyperbolic expressions as afunction of the peak load and displacement at peak load. For large deformationground movement events; such as ice gouging or seismic fault movement, recentstudies indicate the structural models are deficient and do not account for thecomplex response including load coupling and superposition errors (Daiyan etal., 2010a; Peek and Nobahar, 2012; Phillips et al., 2004a). There is a need toevaluate the current state of practice for the numerical modelling ofpipeline/soil interaction events with respect to the simulation of morerealistic soil behaviour and complex loading events; such as obliquepipeline/soil interaction. Pipeline/soil interaction is a multifaceted problem that involves theinterplay between factors including the magnitude and distribution of soilproperties (e.g. type, unit weight, strength parameters, constitutiverelationships, rate sensitivity), contact mechanics (e.g. interface properties)pipeline characteristics (e.g. diameter, burial depth) and load effects (e.g.oblique coupling, strain localization, discontinuous behaviour). This drivesthe development of a robust and comprehensive technical framework includinglaboratory tests to refine soil constitutive models and physical models tovalidate advanced computational models in support of engineering analysis anddesign activities (Kenny et al., 2007; Pike and Kenny, 2011, 2012).

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.676
Threshold uncertainty score0.444

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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.237 · 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