MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2314704295 · doi:10.1115/omae2006-92125

Buried Pipelines Subjected to Transverse Ground Movement: Comparison Between Full-Scale Testing and Numerical Modeling

2006· article· en· W2314704295 on OpenAlexaff
Hamid Karimian, Dharma Wijewickreme, Doug Honegger

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground Structures
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOverburdenGeotechnical engineeringPipeline transportFinite element methodStructural engineeringGeologyConstitutive equationNumerical modelsMohr–Coulomb theoryScale (ratio)Numerical analysisComputer simulationScale modelEngineeringMathematicsSimulationMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A research program has been undertaken to study the behaviour of buried steel pipelines subject to lateral horizontal ground movements, and to provide appropriate data to calibrate and validate numerical model(s). A large sand chamber (2.5 m W × 3.8 m L × 2.5 m H) available at the University of British Columbia was employed to conduct full-scale lateral pullout tests on steel pipelines, with different diameters and buried in sand simulating different overburden ratios. Numerical analyses were performed using finite-difference-method-based software with the soil response simulated using Mohr-Coulomb and hyperbolic elastic constitutive models. The input parameters for the initial computer modeling were based only on element testing results. The numerical predictions, using the two soil constitutive models, are compared with the results of lateral pullout tests. The numerical model, after validation with full-scale test results can be used to predict soil loads on pipe for different overburden ratios, pipe sizes and soil properties.

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 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.459
Threshold uncertainty score0.977

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.202 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations6
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground StructuresFrench-language works237,207