Centrifuge modeling of the influence of joint stiffness on pipeline response to underneath tunnel excavation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Any tunnel construction inevitably causes differential soil movements, resulting in additional adverse effects on existing pipelines. Although there are many jointed pipelines in practice, previous studies commonly simplified existing pipelines as continuous structures. In this study, centrifuge tests were designed and conducted to investigate the influence of joint stiffness on pipeline response due to tunnel excavation. Along the longitudinal pipeline direction, upward and downward pipe–soil relative movements were identified. Because of relatively flexible joints causing a reduction in the pipeline flexural stiffness, tunneling-induced maximum settlement in the jointed pipeline was much larger than that in the continuous pipeline. Tunnel excavation caused bending moment in the continuous pipeline only, while bending moment and joint rotation occurred simultaneously in the jointed pipeline. As a result of joint rotation, tunneling-induced maximum bending strain in the jointed pipeline was less than 42.4% of that in the continuous pipeline. If a jointed pipeline is assumed as a continuous structure, tunneling-induced pipeline settlement is underestimated, while bending strain is grossly overestimated. All the centrifuge test results were adopted to verify the validity of calculation charts for estimating tunneling-induced maximum bending strain and joint rotation in existing pipelines.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".