MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3137636100 · doi:10.1680/jphmg.20.00043

Some observations in soil–pipe model tests under vertical uplift loading in compacted clay

2021· article· en· W3137636100 on OpenAlexaff
Chee K. Wong, Richard Wan, R.C.K. Wong

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Physical Modelling in Geotechnics · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground Structures
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeotechnical engineeringGeologyDisplacement (psychology)Shear (geology)Pipeline transportStress (linguistics)Environmental sciencePetrology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Physical model tests are conducted to measure the soil resistance exerted on a steel pipe under vertical uplift loading at varying displacement rates in compacted clay. It is observed that the measured soil ultimate resistances are much lower (two to three times in magnitude) than those recommended by existing design guidelines for pipelines buried at shallow depths. This large discrepancy is attributed to the differences in failure modes observed in the tests and assumed in the guidelines. Under vertical uplift loading, the tensile failure mode is more dominant than the shear failure mode in compacted clay at shallow depths, which is not taken into account in the existing guidelines. Furthermore, the results illustrate that the soil–pipe system exhibits a time- or rate-dependent behaviour under vertical uplift loading – that is, ‘isotach’ behaviour. The soil resistance increases with increasing pipe displacement rate, or vice versa. The soil resistance drops by 10–30% when stress relaxation is allowed. Practical implications of this time-dependent behaviour of compacted clay on the performance of buried pipelines subjected to long-term ground movement are addressed.

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 score0.348
Threshold uncertainty score0.851

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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.232 · 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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Physical Modelling in GeotechnicsSame topicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground StructuresFrench-language works237,207