Laboratory Investigation of Buried Small-Diameter Steel Pipes Subjected to Axial Ground Movement
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Small-diameter steel pipes are often used for the distribution of gas to residential homes. These pipelines must service the end-user, even in landslide-prone areas, necessitating the study of their response to ground movements. Many studies were conducted by pulling large-diameter transmission pipes through static soil mass to investigate the behavior of pipes subjected to axial ground movements. The effects of soil movement around a restrained pipe in the field are believed to be similar to that of pulling a pipe through static soil. A test facility was designed at the Memorial University of Newfoundland, where a soil mass was pulled around a buried pipe fixed at one end, simulating the condition expected during ground movement. This paper investigates the axial resistance of steel pipes with varying diameters (26.7, 60.3, and 114.3 mm) in dense sand using the test facility. The tank was pulled for multiple pulling phases and held in place for varying times between each pull to investigate stress relaxation during ground movements. Pipes were instrumented with distributed fiber-optic sensors to capture the development of strains along the pipe. Results showed that the normalized axial force was higher during soil pulling than pipe pulling. No reduction of axial force was observed during the relaxation period. Measurements of axial strains along the length of the pipe indicated negligible pipe elongations during testing.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it