Response of a landfill drainage pipe buried in a trench
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The structural response of drainage pipes used in landfill leachate collection systems depends on the properties of both the pipe and the backfill soil, as well as the type of backfill configuration. The implications of using different backfill configurations for the structural performance of the pipe are discussed for laterally extensive blankets, mounds, and trenches. The objective of this paper is to quantify the structural performance of a landfill pipe when buried in a trench. Unlike in the trenches for many gravity-flow pipes, where only a proportion of the vertical overburden stresses may reach the pipe because of conventional trench arching, it is shown the stresses in a landfill trench may be larger than the overburden stresses. This occurs when the backfill in the trench is stiffer than the surrounding material, denoted as negative trench arching. Results from a large-scale laboratory test and numerical analysis of a pipe placed in a gravel trench cut into soft clay are presented. The configuration tested resulted in (a) negative trench arching that produced an increase in loads acting on the pipe; (b) softening of the gravel backfill surrounding the pipe, resulting in a decrease in pipe support; and (c) intrusion of clay into the voids between the gravel particles along the trench sidewall, causing a decrease in support to the pipe. All three of these factors resulted in increased pipe deflections.Key words: leachate collection pipe, landfill, polymer pipe, trench, arching.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".