MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2036741826 · doi:10.1139/l01-068

Structural performance of sliplined watermain

2001· article· en· W2036741826 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jack Zhao, L Daigle

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Civil Engineering · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground Structures
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGroutStructural engineeringGeotechnical engineeringService lifeWater pipeEngineeringElectrical conduitStress (linguistics)Trenchless technologyPipeline transportMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Rehabilitation of a watermain by grouted sliplining is usually carried out when the existing pipe is only partially deteriorated. Although designs that neglect the structural contributions from the existing pipe and the grout are generally conservative, the performance of the rehabilitated pipe needs to be better understood for effective design and management of buried water pipes. Presented in this paper is a practical method for the determination of load sharing and circumferential stresses in a sliplined pressure pipe. The laboratory tests show that the load carrying capacity of a cast iron pipe increases substantially after it is sliplined and grouted. Results also indicate that the eccentricity between the host pipe and the inserted pipe and the direction of eccentricity have an impact on the rupture load of the sliplined pipe. The effects of the host pipe wall thickness and the grout strength are also discussed. Although the method is based on a pressurized watermain, it can be used to assess the load carrying capacity of a non-pressurized pipe such as a sewer pipe. The use of this method is demonstrated through an example.Key words: performance, sliplining, watermain, circumferential stress, load sharing, grout, service life.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.060
Threshold uncertainty score0.659

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.005
GPT teacher head0.164
Teacher spread0.159 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations23
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Civil EngineeringSame topicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground StructuresFrench-language works237,207