The design of a laboratory facility for evaluating the structural response of small-diameter buried pipes
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The design of a new laboratory facility for evaluating the structural response of small-diameter buried pipes (e.g., leachate collection pipes in landfills) is presented. The pipe is tested within a 2.0 m wide, 2.0 m long, and 1.6 m high prism of soil, subject to large vertical pressures (1000 kPa), with only minimal roughness and deflection of the lateral boundaries. Results from finite element analyses are presented to examine the effect of proximity, roughness, and stiffness of the lateral boundary on the soil and pipe response and how reasonable the laboratory idealizations are relative to the deep burial conditions expected to prevail in the field. Shear stresses arising from the roughness of the lateral boundaries alter the stresses acting around the pipe and reduce the proportion of the applied surcharge reaching the pipe. Outward deflection of the lateral boundaries also alters the stress state around the pipe, predominantly resulting from decreases in horizontal stresses within the soil. Reducing boundary friction to less than 5° and limiting the boundary deformation to less than 1 mm at a vertical surcharge of 1000 kPa provide a good idealization of field conditions for a deeply buried pipe.Key words: buried pipes, soil-structure interaction, laboratory testing, boundary friction.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it