Development of a prototype for modelling soil–pipe interaction and its application for predicting uplift resistance to buried pipe movements in sand
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents a testing rig for measuring the reactions on rigid pipes buried in sand during episodes of relative displacement. Following a detailed presentation of the 1g prototype, the test preparation procedure, and the characterization of the test sand’s shear strength and dilation potential under the low confining stresses pertinent to the problem, the paper focuses on the workflow devised to obtain accurate measurements of friction and arching effects, and accordingly normalize them to account for scale (stress level) effects. Emphasis is put on demonstrating the effectiveness of the sand deposition method for accurately controlling the density of the sample, and on quantitatively assessing its uniformity. Measurements obtained during a series of uplift tests, including reaction force – pipe displacement curves and images of the developing failure surface, facilitated by particle image velocimetry and close-range photogrammetry techniques, are compared against published data and analytical methods. The results lead to the development of a new simplified formula for calculating the uplift resistance to buried pipe movements in sand: capable of accounting for scale effects, yet simple enough to be used for the analysis of pipes in practice.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".