Reliability measures for buried flexible pipes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The safety of infrastructure facilities such as buried pipelines is the primary objective of engineering design. An improved measure of safety and reliability of these structures can be obtained with concepts of probability. The assessment of safety involves uncertainties at various stages, such as testing, design, and field installation and operations. This paper presents a reliability analysis to estimate the deflection (cross-sectional ovalization) and buckling response of buried flexible pipes, considering uncertainties in the design parameters. The need to consider variations in design parameters, such as soil modulus and bulk density of the fill, and the influence of correlation between soil modulus and bulk density in the estimation of reliability is emphasized. It was observed that reliability index decreases with an increase in the coefficient of variation of soil modulus and bulk density of the fill and increases with increase in correlation coefficient between the variables. It is possible to obtain a central factor of safety (CFS) value on the basis of the target reliability and variations in the design parameters. The use of reliability-based considerations is illustrated with two typical simple cases of buried pipe installations.Key words: reliability measures, buried flexible pipes, deflection (ovalization), buckling, variability, safety.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".