Estimation of Permanent Ground Displacement Demand on Pipelines Buried in Organic Soils
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Analytical and numerical approaches are available to predict strain demand due to permanent ground displacements on pipelines buried in mineral soils such as sands and clay. However, not much research has been undertaken to study the soil restraint development on buried pipelines located in organic soils that are known to be very weak and soft (i.e., low in strength and stiffness); this is despite the knowledge that significant ground deformations could occur in organic soils in the form of peat slides or bog flow. In view of this, the present study was conducted to investigate the soil restraint forces on pipes buried in organic soils with particular attention to the strains in buried pipelines when subjected to ground displacements. About 40 cases of finite element analyses were performed in ABAQUS using the beam on elastic foundation approach, with soil restraint development simulated using 3D Winkler-type beam-on-soil springs (p–y curves). The p–y curves were obtained based on a numerical framework calibrated and verified using data arising from a series of axial and lateral full-scale physical model tests performed in organic soil as a part of this research program. The analyses were performed considering different undrained shear strengths for peat. The strains in the pipe were estimated considering two different types of possible ground displacement patterns, abrupt and gradually varying permanent ground displacement (PGD) profiles. The computed strain demand under an abrupt PGD profile was significantly higher compared to a gradual PGD profile. The overall pipeline performance was governed by two mechanisms: (1) bending and axial tensile strains due to the pipeline following the PGD profile, and (2) axial soil restraint forces mobilized by transverse pipe movement, leading to axial strains. The outcomes from these analyses are reported herein. The outcomes from these analyses are reported herein.
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".