Cyclic and post-cyclic axial behaviors of steel pipelines buried in dense sand
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The current design guidelines for underground pipelines do not consider cyclic axial soil-pipe interaction and its impact on post-cyclic pullout resistance, potentially leading to unsafe designs. This study conducted 12 large-scale physical model tests on steel pipes in dense sand to investigate their axial behavior during and after cyclic loading. A film-like sensor was employed to monitor soil-pipe interface contact pressure and earth pressure. The test program included different levels of pipe roughness, overburden pressure, and cyclic displacement. Given a cyclic displacement, the axial resistance in the first loading exceeds the guideline prediction, attributed to the increased interface contact pressures by constrained dilation. Subsequently, the axial resistance degrades over cycles. It stabilizes at a value that is roughness-dependent and smaller than the prediction because of the translation of the initial negative soil arching to positive soil arching on the pipe. The post-cyclic pullout resistance is smaller than the monotonic resistance without cycling when the cyclic displacement is relatively large (above 5 mm in this study). In contrast, the post-cyclic pullout resistance is above the monotonic resistance when the cyclic displacement is smaller due to cyclic loading-induced soil densification. The difference between post-cyclic and monotonic resistances for the rougher pipe is more significant.
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 | 0.001 | 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".