Pipe-CLSM Interface Bond Strength From Axial Pullout Testing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Buried pipeline systems form the backbone of the oil and gas transportation infrastructure, and the performance of these systems located in areas subject to potential ground movements is a critical consideration in engineering design. In mitigating against future or on-going ground displacement hazards, there are instances where the axial soil restraint (soil anchoring capacity) needs to be increased to avoid transferring loads to adjacent potentially vulnerable components in the pipeline system. One method to increase axial soil restraint is to increase the effective diameter of the pipeline. This can be done by encasing the pipeline in controlled, low-strength material (CLSM). The use of CLSM to increase axial soil restraint on buried pipelines requires that the axial load to produce pipe-CLSM interface bond failure be greater than that required for failure at the CLSM-soil interface. To advance the state of knowledge of the axial failure mechanisms of the soil-CLSM-pipe composite, a systematic full-scale testing program was undertaken using the Advanced Soil Pipe Interaction Research (ASPIRe™) modeling chamber at the University of British Columbia. Research findings from 22 axial pullout tests that were completed to assess the bond strength at the interface between CLSM and NPS 8 steel pipe specimens with various coatings are presented. The tests reveal that the bond strengths as a percentage of compressional strength measured in studies of CLSM cast around cold-formed steel align closely to the values measured from these tests.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".