Predicting Hydrostatic Infiltration in Reinforced Concrete Sewer Pipes Considering Joint Gap and Joint Offset
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Groundwater infiltration into underground sewer systems has long been a costly issue for municipalities. With reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) being a primary sewer system option, existing hydrostatic testing methods conducted by manufacturers, as required by specifications, do not reflect real in situ hydrostatic performance. This paper deploys the results of a novel experimental approach, which better simulates field conditions, for evaluating the resistance against infiltration of RCP with joint imperfections. The hydrostatic infiltration test developed is safe and easy to conduct by RCP producers at the factory. A total of 68 tests were conducted on full-scale 600, 900, and 1,200 mm diameter RCP with various joint gap and joint offset alignment conditions using two models of single offset self-lubricated gaskets that are commonly used in jointing RCP. Experimental hydrostatic infiltration performance curves were developed, indicating that predictions of the sealing potential derived using gasket geometry agreed with the results of the infiltration test. Results demonstrated that reasonable prediction of the infiltration resistance potential of joint gaskets could be achieved. An infiltration potential assessment procedure pertinent to the test results and field conditions was presented. A case study of deep RCP pipe subjected to groundwater pressure was provided to illustrate the usefulness of the performance curves to derive maximum allowable joint gap, which contractors could rely on during RCP installation. The findings should provide technical guidance on how water tightness of RCP can be achieved at installations below the prevailing groundwater level.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".