Behaviour of bell and spigot joints in buried reinforced concrete pipelines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Joint behaviour in reinforced concrete pipes when buried and subjected to service live loading needs to be assessed to define the expected response of these elements, as excessive rotation and (or) shear across the joint could generate structural damage or leakage and subsequent loss in soil support that can bring the system to its serviceability or resistance limits. Two reinforced concrete pipelines with bell and spigot joints, one 600 mm (24 in.) and the other 1200 mm (48 in.) in diameter, were buried and subjected to the maximum service live loading for a simulated wheel pair at three independent locations above the pipeline. The smaller specimen was also tested with the protruding bells placed directly on the stiff foundation. Each pipeline was then tested up to and beyond the fully factored load at shallow cover and with the load applied directly over the central joint. The response of a single joint within the pipe system can be conservatively evaluated considering two rigid pipes connected by a hinge, and considering a single wheel pair (not axle loads), the most severe surface load condition. Neglecting leakage that was not studied, the joint strength was controlled by the circumferential response of the bells.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".