Ultimate Strength Testing of Two Deteriorated Metal Culverts Repaired with Spray-On Cementitious Liners
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two deteriorated corrugated steel pipelines were buried in the west test pit at Queen's University and then repaired with spray-on cementitious liners with target liner thicknesses of 3 in. (76 mm) and 2 in. (51 mm), respectively. After service load testing described elsewhere, tandem axle loading was applied at the ground surface over each of the rehabilitated culverts; forces up to and beyond fully factored loads were used that brought the culverts to their ultimate limit states, evident by the development of both longitudinal cracks along the crown and invert of each structure, as well as circumferential (ring) fractures at various locations. The repaired pipes were then exhumed and measurements made to characterize the actual (as opposed to nominal) liner thicknesses achieved by the repairs. The level of composite interaction between the liners and steel pipes was also examined. Ultimate load testing at cover depth of 4 ft (1.2 m) induced the first signs of liner cracking at tandem loads of 180 kips (800 kN) and 145 kips (650 kN) for Pipelines 1 and 2, respectively. Circumferential cracks were observed under the wheel pairs and near the midpoint of the axle. Mean liner thicknesses were found to be 2.5 in. (64 mm) for Pipeline 1 (84% of the target thickness) and 1.7 in. (44 mm) for Pipeline 2 (87% of the target). Higher thicknesses were observed at the pipe crowns, and lower thicknesses were seen at the invert. Assessment of composite interaction during flexure of the lined steel pipes indicated that although full interaction was observed at some locations, only partial interaction occurred at other positions. Therefore, liner design should not rely on an assumption of a bond between the two components.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".