MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4297244159 · doi:10.13031/aea.15053

Choice of Pipe Material Influences Drain Spacing and System Cost in Subsurface Drainage Design

2022· article· en· W4297244159 on OpenAlex
Ehsan Ghane

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Engineering in Agriculture · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSoil and Unsaturated Flow
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCollege of Engineering, Michigan State UniversityMichigan State University
KeywordsDrainageCloggingRADIUSRowNominal Pipe SizeGeotechnical engineeringGeologyMaterials scienceComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Highlights For 3- or 4-row regular-perforated pipes, the effective radius ranged from 0.3 to 0.9 cm (average 0.6 cm). For 8-row regular-perforated pipes, the effective radius was 1.9 cm. The effective radius of sock-wrapped pipes ranged from 5.7 to 6.0 cm (average 5.9 cm). The 8-row sand-slot pipes had a lower initial system cost than the sock-wrapped pipes. The 8-row regular-perforated pipes had a lower initial system cost than the 4-row regular-perforated pipes. Abstract. Knitted-sock envelopes are applied in agricultural subsurface drainage to prevent sediment clogging of the drain pipes. In the United States and Canada, sand-slot pipes are sometimes used as a cheaper alternative to sock-wrapped pipes. However, their initial system cost has not been compared. The main objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of pipe material on drain spacing and initial system cost. First, the theoretical effective radius of each pipe material was estimated. Then, the drain spacing was calculated for each pipe material in a drainage design, such that each pipe would provide the same design drainage rate (i.e., same water removal rate). The results showed that the effective radius of sock-wrapped pipes (average 5.9 cm) was much greater than that of 4-row (average 0.4 cm) and 8-row perforated sand-slot pipes (average 1.6 cm). Rows refer to number of longitudinal rows of perforations. The sock-wrapped pipes considerably increased the effective radius of the pipe by reducing the entrance head loss. Furthermore, the sock-wrapped pipes allowed for a wider drain spacing (ranging from 0.8 to 5.4 m wider) in soil with risk of drain sedimentation, thereby reducing the total length of the lateral drain pipe needed for drainage design compared to both 4- and 8-row sand-slot pipes. The 8-row regular-perforated pipes allowed for a wider optimum drain spacing, thereby reducing the initial system cost in soil without a drain sedimentation issue compared to 4-row regular-perforated pipes. In conclusion, even though the sock-wrapped pipe reduced the total length of the lateral drain pipe, the 8-row sand-slot pipe had a lower initial system cost compared to the sock-wrapped pipe, when designed at the same design drainage rate and drain depth. Keywords: Drain spacing, Effective radius, Entrance resistance, Geotextile, Knitted sock, Perforation.

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 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 categoriesnone
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 score0.368
Threshold uncertainty score0.787

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.170
Teacher spread0.164 · 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