MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2049365887 · doi:10.1115/ipc2008-64624

A 3-Dimensional Continuum ALE Model for Soil-Pipe Interaction

2008· article· en· W2049365887 on OpenAlexaff
Abdelfettah Fredj, Aaron Dinovitzer, Joe Zhou

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground Structures
Canadian institutionsTransCanada (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLandslideEulerian pathPipeline (software)Geotechnical engineeringPipeline transportLagrangianDeformation (meteorology)GeologyStructural engineeringComputer scienceEngineeringMechanical engineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Soil-pipe interactions when large ground movements occur are an important consideration in pipeline design, route selection, guide monitoring and reduce the risk of damage or failure. Large ground movement can be caused by slope failures, faulting, landslides and seismic activities. Such conditions induce large deformations of both the soil and pipe. Analyses of such behavior pose a significant challenge to capabilities of standard finite elements as the capability to analyze large deformations is required. This requirement is difficult to meet for Lagrangian-based code. New developments using ALE methods make it possible to determine soil and pipe deformation confidently for large displacements. This paper describes a study performed to investigate the mechanical behavior of a pipeline subjected to large soil movement. A 3D continuum modeling using an ALE (Arbitrary Eulerian Lagrangian) formulation was developed and run using LS-DYNA. The results are compared with published experimental data of large-scale test to verify the numerical analysis method. The analysis is further extended to analyze the soil-pipe interaction under permanent ground deformation such as those associated with surface fault rupture and landslides.

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.796
Threshold uncertainty score0.374

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.196 · 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

Citations5
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground StructuresFrench-language works237,207