Quantifying Resistance of Reinforced Concrete Pipe Joints to Water Infiltration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hydrostatic joint performance for infiltration is a key design requirement for a reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) to withstand in situ groundwater pressure. However, current standards and test methods adopted by RCP manufacturers do not adequately consider this requirement, leading to higher risk of leaky joints. Moreover, existing in-field evaluation methods conducted during pipe installation commissioning have several limitations. Although RCP joint leakage highly depends on the installation quality, both the ultimate capacity and operating resistance against infiltration of commonly used joints and gasket profiles are still unknown. The authors have recently developed a new test method to evaluate RCP joint performance against infiltration. This paper analyzes the data collected from 85 full-scale infiltration tests measuring the ultimate and operating capacity of RCP ranging from 600 to 1,200 mm in diameter. The analysis demonstrates that critical parameters including the joint gap, gasket mass, annular space influence ratio, and time-dependent behavior significantly affect the RCP resistance to infiltration. The large testing program confirms that the new test method is simple, robust, safe, and reliable for measuring the infiltration capacity of RCP joints. Thus, it can be considered for routine quality control testing.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".