Numerical modeling of tunneling effect on buried pipelines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The underground space in urban areas is frequently congested with utilities, including pipelines and conduits, that are affected by underground construction, e.g., tunneling. This paper carries out finite element (FE) analyses to investigate the effects of tunneling-induced ground movement on pipelines, with special attention to the different soil responses to uplift and downward pipe–soil relative movements. A series of numerical parametric studies with 900 FE simulation runs in total is performed to encompass various combinations of ground settlement profiles, pipe dimensions, material properties, pipe burial depth, and soil properties that are typical for utility pipelines and tunnel construction in urban areas. The results are summarized in a dimensionless plot of relative pipe–soil stiffness versus ratio of maximum pipe curvature to maximum ground curvature, which can be used to directly estimate the maximum pipe bending strain and (or) to directly assess the tunneling-induced risk to pipelines. The FE results and dimensionless plot are validated against field and centrifuge test results reported in the literature. Effect of pipeline orientation with respect to the tunnel centerline is explored. It might be unconservative if design analysis only considers the case that the pipeline is perpendicular to the tunnel centerline.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".