MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4294326335 · doi:10.3390/geotechnics2030035

Probabilistic Seismic Risk Analysis of Buried Pipelines Due to Permanent Ground Deformation for Victoria, BC

2022· article· en· W4294326335 on OpenAlexaff
Sandip Dey, Solomon Tesfamariam

Bibliographic record

VenueGeotechnics · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground Structures
Canadian institutionsOkanagan University College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPipeline transportProbabilistic logicSeismic hazardSeismic riskFinite element methodStructural engineeringIncremental Dynamic AnalysisGeologyGeotechnical engineeringSeismic analysisEngineeringSeismologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Buried continuous pipelines are prone to failure due to permanent ground deformation as a result of fault rupture. Since the failure mode is dependent on a number of factors, a probabilistic approach is necessary to correctly compute the seismic risk. In this study, a novel method to estimate regional seismic risk to buried continuous pipelines is presented. The seismic risk assessment method is thereafter illustrated for buried gas pipelines in the City of Victoria, British Columbia. The illustrated example considers seismic hazard from the Leech River Valley Fault Zone (LRVFZ). The risk assessment approach considers uncertainties of earthquake rupture, soil properties at the site concerned, geometric properties of pipes and operating conditions. Major improvements in this method over existing comparable studies include the use of stochastic earthquake source modeling and analytical Okada solutions to generate regional ground deformation, probabilistically. Previous studies used regression equations to define probabilistic ground deformations along a fault. Secondly, in the current study, experimentally evaluated 3D shell and continuum pipe–soil finite element models were used to compute pipeline responses. Earlier investigations used simple soil spring–beam element pipe models to evaluate the pipeline response. Finally, the current approach uses the multi-fidelity Gaussian process surrogate model to ensure efficiency and limit required computational resources. The developed multi-fidelity Gaussian process surrogate model was successfully cross-validated with high coefficients of determination of 0.92 and 0.96. A fragility curve was generated based on failure criteria from ALA strain limits. The seismic risks of pipeline failure due to compressive buckling and tensile rupture at the given site considered were computed to be 1.5 percent and 0.6 percent in 50 years, respectively.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.794
Threshold uncertainty score0.410

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.199 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations3
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeotechnicsSame topicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground StructuresFrench-language works237,207