Influence of ground motion characteristics on liquefaction-induced pipe uplift
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Soil liquefaction occurring due to earthquakes poses severe risk to both above-ground structures as well as buried structures such as pipes, manholes etc. During liquefaction, the shear strength of the soil above and around the pipeline could decrease due to build-up of excess pore pressures and, subsequently, resulting in buoyancy forces that could cause the pipelines to displace and potentially “float up” towards the ground surface. Limit-equilibrium based procedures allow for prediction of uplift occurrence, but predicting the magnitude of uplift is a complex task with a number of components such as soil type, pipe diameter (D) and burial depth (H), pipe boundary constraints, and earthquake motion contributing to this mechanism. This study utilizes a well-calibrated and validated 2D numerical model to investigate the effects of input motion characteristics on pipe uplift for a steel pipe buried in a saturated, loose, and homogeneous deposit of Fraser River sand. The commercially available finite difference FLAC software and soil constitutive model PM4Sand were utilized. The influence of input motion amplitude and duration on uplift behavior of pipe was examined and discussed.
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 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".