MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Ground Displacements from a Pipe-Bursting Experiment in Well-Graded Sand and Gravel

2009· article· en· W2046493950 on OpenAlexafffund
J. A. Cholewa, R.W.I. Brachman, Ian D. Moore, W. Andy Take

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground Structures
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersOntario Innovation Trust
KeywordsBurstingGeotechnical engineeringGeologyDisplacement (psychology)Tension (geology)Transverse planeStructural engineeringMaterials scienceCompression (physics)EngineeringComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pipe bursting is a construction technique that involves the replacement of an existing buried pipe with potentially much less surface disturbance than traditional cut and cover construction. However, excessive ground movements associated with pipe-bursting operations may lead to damage to surrounding infrastructure. A static pipe-bursting experiment was performed in sand and gravel within an 8-m-long, 8-m-wide, and 3-m-deep test pit to quantify the ground displacements from pipe bursting. An existing unreinforced concrete pipe buried 1.385 m below the ground surface was replaced with a high-density polyethylene pipe. Pulling force and the three-dimensional nature of surface displacements associated with pipe bursting are examined. The 4-m wide surface response had a peak vertical displacement of 6 mm. In addition, transverse displacements of 1.2 mm resulted in the formation of a tension crack in the ground above the concrete pipe. This experiment offers data that improves the understanding of the mechanisms of ground disturbance, and provides unique experimental data for calibration of numerical models.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.447
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.180
Teacher spread0.176 · 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.

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

Citations19
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental EngineeringSame topicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground StructuresFrench-language works237,207