MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4361283613 · doi:10.1139/cgj-2021-0715

On the effect of soil water saturation on buried steel pipe responses under external load

2023· article· en· W4361283613 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Yadong Zhang, R.C.K. Wong

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground Structures
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeotechnical engineeringSaturation (graph theory)StiffnessMaterials sciencePlasticityFinite element methodGeologyComposite materialStructural engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Soil water saturation affects soil behavior when subjected to external loads and thus buried pipe deformation. To investigate this effect, full-scale tests were conducted on a buried steel pipe with a diameter of 600 mm. The deformed pipe ring transforms from a “heart” shape into an inclined “heart” shape due to the load redistribution within the soil after increasing soil water saturation. Then, a three-dimensional finite element model was created and validated based on the experimental data. A parametric study was thereafter performed to investigate the impact of factors including soil water saturation, cover depth, and pipe wall-thickness on buried pipe responses when subjected to external loads. Soil might be simply modeled as a linear elastic material at a large cover depth (>0.6 m) or a water saturation < 80%. Soil plasticity should be considered at a relatively low cover depth (≤0.6 m) and a high water saturation (≥80%). The pipe circumferential stress is inversely proportional to the square of pipe wall-thickness when the pipe–soil stiffness ratio is equal to or greater than 0.13.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.197 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations7
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Geotechnical JournalSame topicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground StructuresFrench-language works237,207