Development of Soil Restraints for Buried Pipelines in Muskeg Soils Subjected to Lateral Ground Displacements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A systematic research program was undertaken with the objective of developing quantitative geotechnical parameters to support soil-pipe interaction assessment for buried pipelines in muskeg. For this purpose, a field geotechnical investigation program comprising cone penetration testing (SCPT) with shear wave velocity (Vs) measurements, electronic field vane shear testing (eVST), full-flow ball penetration testing (BPT), and pressuremeter testing (PMT), along with fixed-piston tube soil sampling was undertaken in a muskeg soil terrain. The data from field testing were initially interpreted to obtain typical stiffness and strength parameters for the subject soils. These parameters were then used to numerically simulate pressuremeter tests and the results were compared with those obtained from field pressuremeter testing; the intent was to calibrate a suitable constitutive model to represent the muskeg soil mass. These ascalibrated constitutive model was then applied on numerical models developed to simulate buried pipelines in muskeg soil subject to relative lateral ground movements. The work is aimed at developing a framework to generate soil restraint versus relative ground displacement relations (“soil springs”) to assess soil-pipe interaction of pipelines buried in muskeg soils. Initial results from the research are presented herein, with a comparison made between soil springs developed from numerical analyses and those generated from current practice guidelines.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".