MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2333184816 · doi:10.1139/cgj-2012-0256

Full-scale physical testing of a buried reinforced concrete pipe under axle load

2013· article· en· W2333184816 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Geoff R. Lay, R.W.I. Brachman

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground Structures
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsServiceability (structure)Geotechnical engineeringAxle loadAxleBending momentCrackingStructural engineeringUltimate tensile strengthGeologyTruckMaterials scienceComposite materialEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The structural response of a 600 mm inner diameter reinforced concrete pipe buried in a dense, well-graded sand and gravel soil and subjected to surface load from a single design truck axle with 0.3, 0.6, and 0.9 m of soil cover above the pipe crown is quantified using full-scale physical testing. The pipe did not crack at its minimum burial depth of 0.3 m under working CL-625 and CL-800 single-axle highway design loads as the largest tensile strains were only 50%–60% of those at the onset of cracking. Application of the fully factored CL-625 single-axle load at a burial depth of 0.3 m resulted in a tensile crack and a maximum circumferential bending moment of 6 kN·m/m; however, no limit state was reached as the crack width was around one-half the value used to define pipe serviceability and the maximum moment was around 70% of the theoretical ultimate capacity. The decrease in pipe demand from surface load with increasing soil cover is also quantified. At 400 kN of single-axle force, the crown moment decreased to 65% and 35% of the value at 0.3 m burial when the depth of soil cover was increased to 0.6 and 0.9 m, respectively.

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 score0.111
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.187
Teacher spread0.180 · 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

Citations38
Published2013
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Geotechnical JournalSame topicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground StructuresFrench-language works237,207