Soil restraints on buried pipelines subjected to reverse-fault displacement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The interaction between a buried pipeline and surrounding soil during large ground displacements is typically simulated using numerical nonlinear soil-restraint springs aligned with the longitudinal axis of the pipeline and in the two directions orthogonal to it. There are only very limited experimental data available to characterize the soil springs for simulating pipelines crossing reverse faults where large oblique soil displacements relative to the pipe could occur. Full-scale model testing was undertaken to evaluate this complex soil–pipe interaction problem. The tests simulated the performance of ∼400 mm diameter (nominal pipe size, NPS 16) pipe specimens buried in moist sand and crushed limestone trench backfill. The peak normalized oblique soil restraint (N θ ) values for oblique pipe movement angles (θ), when θ = 0° (horizontal movement) and θ = 90° (vertical movement), estimated based on state-of-practice approaches, were in agreement with those from full-scale testing. The value of N θ was found to depend significantly on the peak friction angle of soil ([Formula: see text]) when θ was closer to 0°, whereas N θ was less sensitive to [Formula: see text] when θ was beyond about 35°. The theoretical values of N θ based on limit-equilibrium approaches compared well with the experimental findings.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".