Soil pressure and structural response of large-diameter buried flexible pipes considering internal pressure effects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Buried flexible pipes are essential for infrastructure, yet current soil pressure models often overlook internal pressure. This study employs theoretical analysis and finite element methods to examine the soil pressure under internal pressure. An innovative soil pressure model is proposed, and the corresponding calculation formulas are derived. The results show that soil pressure generally exhibits a parabolic distribution under internal pressure, which is less affected by pipe diameter and diameter-to-thickness ratio but significantly influenced by burial depth. Moreover, the peak soil pressure is higher than that predicted by the prism or Marston models. A parabola model for soil pressure is proposed, characterizing the distribution in a parabolic form, with the peak pressure calculated as 1.2 times the prism load. For good accuracy and adaptability of large-diameter pipes, parabola and basin models are used together according to the relative size of pipe diameter and burial depth. Compared to uniform soil pressure, the parabola model reduces the deformation coefficient by approximately 26%, while the basin model reduces it by about 7%. Furthermore, a comprehensive comparison of pipe deformation from various methods shows that the proposed model aligns more closely with the finite element results in both trend and magnitude.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".