MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2106226757 · doi:10.1139/t11-061

Investigating pipeline–soil interaction under axial–lateral relative movements in sand

2011· article· en· W2106226757 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Nasser Daiyan, Shawn Kenny, Ryan Phillips, Radu Popescu

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground Structures
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsOblique caseCentrifugeGeotechnical engineeringFinite element methodSoil structure interactionParametric statisticsGeologyStructural engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents results from an experimental and numerical study on the axial–lateral interaction of pipes with dense sand. A series of centrifuge tests were conducted, with a rigid pipeline displaced in the horizontal plane in a cohesionless test bed. The relative pipe–soil interaction included axial, lateral, and oblique loading events. A three-dimensional continuum finite element model was developed using ABAQUS/Standard ( Hibbitt et al. 2005 ) software. The numerical model was calibrated against experimental results. A parametric study was conducted, using the calibrated finite element model to extend the investigations. The ultimate axial and lateral soil loading was found to be dependent on the angle of attack for relative movement between the pipe and soil. Two different failure mechanisms were observed for axial–lateral pipeline–soil interaction. This study confirms and improves on a two-part failure criterion that accounts for axial–lateral coupling during oblique soil loading events on buried pipelines.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.214
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations80
Published2011
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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