Response of pipelines of differing flexural stiffness to normal faulting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Relative ground movement represents a severe seismic hazard to pipelines crossing faults, and the maximum expected pipeline strains are the primary design concern. Past research has documented how stiff steel pipelines respond to permanent ground deformation and has produced calibrated empirical models of pipeline response to strike-slip and normal faulting. However, what little data exist on flexible pipelines illustrate how ‘stiff pipeline’ soil reaction models significantly overestimate peak strains for flexible pipelines. Results for four centrifuge tests conducted on model pipelines are presented to quantify the flexural response of pipelines to normal faulting over a wide range of pipeline stiffness. Continuous functions of pipeline and soil displacement calculated using digital image correlation are used to assess pipeline curvature, soil reaction and relative displacement. Comparisons of peak measured curvatures to current design analysis methods confirm that empirical stiff pipeline soil reactions progressively overestimate maximum curvature as the pipeline's stiffness decreases. Two strategies to modify current empirical soil reactions to account for flexible pipelines were then investigated, with the strategy of reducing the stiffness of the empirical soil reaction (while maintaining the advantage of a simplified, abrupt, step-like fault) providing better outcomes than modification to account for more realistic ground displacement profiles.
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".