A Comparative Study Between Lateral and Upward Anchor-Soil and Pipe-Soil Interaction in Dense Sand
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Buried pipelines are extensively used in onshore and offshore environments for transportation of hydrocarbons. On the other hand, buried anchors have been used for many years to stabilize various structures. In the development of design guidelines for pipelines, theoretical and experimental studies on buried anchors are sometimes used assuming that pipeline-soil and anchor-soil interaction are similar. In the present study, finite element (FE) modeling is performed to simulate the response of pipeline and anchor buried in dense sand subjected to lateral and uplift forces. The similarities and differences between the responses of these two types of structures are examined to justify the application of anchor theory to pipeline behaviour. The stress-strain behaviour of dense sand is modeled using a Modified Mohr-Coulomb (MMC) model, which considers the pre-peak hardening, post-peak softening, density and confining pressure dependent friction and dilation angles. A considerable difference is found between the lateral resistance of pipeline and vertical strip anchor of similar size. Progressive development of shear bands (shear strain concentrated zone) can explain the load-displacement behaviour for both lateral and upward loading.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".