MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2153950252 · doi:10.1061/9780784413692.105

Safeguarding a Buried Pipeline in a Landslide Region

2014· article· en· W2153950252 on OpenAlex
David Y. F. Ho, Nathan Wilbourn, Alvaro Vega, Jesus Tache

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePipelines 2014 · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground Structures
Canadian institutionsSpinal Cord Injury Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPipeline transportLandslideGeologyGeotechnical engineeringPipeline (software)Mining engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Due to economic or other reasons, natural gas transmission pipelines are sometimes constructed in regions susceptible to geohazards such as mud flow, soil creep, and landslide. Although it is possible to design a pipeline to withstand these ground movements, it may not be cos effective to install kilometers of high-grade thick-wall steel pipe traversing a mountainous region. Furthermore, some areas may not appear to be prone to soil movement or may not show visible signs of slope instability at the time of pipeline design and construction. In this case, a section of buried pipeline on a hillside in Colombia was affected by gradual ground movement resulting in buckling of the pipe at the pipe bridge located at the foot of the hill. Repairs were carried out by replacing the buckled section of pipe with a new pipe and cutting the pipe at the top of the hill to relieve tension developed in the buried pipe. Survey markers were installed across the hillside to monitor future ground surface movement. Following the repair, as part of the pipe integrity management plan, the pipeline operator wanted to know where to install strain gauges to monitor pipe stresses, where to install inclinometers to monitor future land slips, and the amount of ground movement allowable before intervention is required. This paper describes how the pipeline operator's requests were achieved by applying multiple analysis techniques. First, the available geotechnical and geological data from the site was reviewed. A representation of the slope was created in a finite element model and a strength reduction procedure was used to estimate a number of significant slip surfaces corresponding to various slope stability factors. The soil movement profile was then normalized and applied as movement perturbation to a three-dimensional finite element pipeline model, which had the appropriate nonlinear interaction between the buried pipe and the surround backfill soil, and the pipe support and connection constraints at the pipe bridge. The pipe stress analysis revealed several critical locations where the peak stress as a function of soil movement was then determined. The computed results gave a good correlation to the observed pipe bridge failure thus giving confidence in the pipeline model and provided useful information for the implementation of the monitoring works.

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.

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 score0.934
Threshold uncertainty score0.731

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.196
Teacher spread0.189 · 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