Effect of Soil Restraint on the Buckling Response of Buried Pipelines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Long-term large deformation geohazards can impose excessive deformation on a buried pipeline. The ground displacement field may initiate pipeline deformation mechanisms that exceed design acceptance criteria with respect to serviceability requirements or ultimate limit states. Conventional engineering practice to define the peak moment or compressive strain limits for buried pipelines has been based on the pipeline mechanical response for in-air conditions. This methodology may be conservative as it ignores the soil effect that imposes geotechnical loads and restraint on buried pipelines. The importance of pipeline/soil interaction and load transfer mechanisms that may affect local buckling of buried pipelines is not well understood. The authors previously developed a new criterion for local buckling strain of buried pipelines in stiff clay through response surface methodology (RSM) [1, 2]. In this paper the new criterion was compared with a number of available in-air based criteria to study the effect of soil restraint on local buckling response of buried pipelines. This criterion predicted larger critical strain than selected in-air based criteria which shows the significant influence of soil presence. The supportive soil effect is discussed. The soil restraining effect increases the pipeline bending resistance, when the pipeline is subjected to large displacement-controlled ground deformation. A correlation between Palmer’s et al. (1990) conclusion [3] and current study’s results has been made. The critical strain increases as the ratio between axial thrust and pipeline bending stiffness decreases.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".