MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2136851661 · doi:10.1061/9780784479360.034

Performance of Polypropylene Corrugated Pipe in North America

2015· article· en· W2136851661 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
John M. Kurdziel

Bibliographic record

VenuePipelines 2015 · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground Structures
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolypropyleneWaterproofingDeflection (physics)StiffnessPipeline transportCrackingEngineeringForensic engineeringMaterials scienceCivil engineeringComposite materialStructural engineeringMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Polypropylene (PP) corrugated pipe is one of the newest products for sanitary and storm sewer applications in North America. Polypropylene pipe has been used for decades in Europe, but was not used in United States and Canada until the past 5 years, when new ASTM International, AASHTO and CSA standards were developed and approved for the applications more typical to North America. Polypropylene offers unique benefits over previous plastic materials used for sanitary and storm sewers. It has very high stress crack resistance, essentially negating any concerns with the type of stress cracking associated Stage II plastic pipe failure. It also has very good impact resistance and a high modulus of elasticity giving it both better performance at low temperature installations and a higher pipe stiffness. This increase in modulus also provides corrugated PP pipe with better beam strength, which helps to mitigate field deflection. In a very short period of time, corrugated polypropylene pipe has been specified and installed on numerous major sanitary and municipal drainage projects. This paper will cover the specific aspects that make polypropylene a unique material for pipeline construction. The various national standards shall be discussed with the emphasis on the performance criteria that these products must be tested to and meet as part of their certification. Some large infrastructure projects will also be highlighted to demonstrate its current acceptance and use.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.200 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePipelines 2015Same topicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground StructuresFrench-language works237,207