The influence of pipeline–backfill–trench interaction on pipeline response to ice gouging: a numerical investigation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ice gouging is a destructive incident to subsea pipelines in Arctic regions. Trenching and backfilling is a cost-effective solution to physically protect the pipeline against ice gouging. Ice gouging imposes a complex combination of stresses and strains through the soil medium, the pipeline, and the interface. Remolded backfill materials with considerably less stiffness than native soil result in more complexity in soil failure mechanisms and pipe trajectories. However, this critical aspect is less explored in the literature on ice gouges. This paper investigated the influences of pipeline–backfill–trench interaction on the soil failure mechanisms and the pipeline responses by coupled Eulerian–Lagrangian method. Two model configurations (shallowly buried and deeply buried pipeline) were set up to investigate the influence of trenching/backfilling, as well as pipe burial depth. Incorporation of the strain rate dependency and strain-softening effects in the soil constitutive model involved the development of a user-defined subroutine and incremental update of the undrained shear strength within the Abaqus software. The research findings indicate that the conventional approach of assuming uniform seabed soil for trenched and backfilled pipelines may not accurately capture the pipeline behavior and soil failure mechanisms.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".