Experimental method for evaluation of soil‐pipe interaction subjected to lateral or vertical cyclic load
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Design of embedded pipelines in seismic areas require consideration of the interaction between pipeline and surrounding soil. The soil‐pipe interaction is often numerically modeled using Winkler springs, where a simple bilinear or trilinear soil resistance‐displacement relationship is employed. As Winkler spring modeling approach requires experimental data for calibration of spring parameters, extensive experimental studies have been carried out. However, most tests in previous studies have been carried out for pipeline specimens subjected to monotonic load, in which pipe lateral‐vertical response coupling is hardly investigated. In the present research, a novel test method that enables testing of a pipe specimen under lateral or vertical cyclic loading is investigated. In the proposed method, a soil box is mounted on a 6‐degree of freedom (DOF) displacement‐controlled table, such that soil‐pipe interaction in the lateral/vertical direction can be investigated. A series of tests considering various parameters such as pipe diameter, burial depth, soil density, and loading condition were performed. Test results provided evidence of the effect type of loading has on soil‐pipe interaction and the strong coupling between pipe response along lateral and vertical directions.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".