MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407405366 · doi:10.1061/jpsea2.pseng-1534

Considering Debonding in Design of Cementitious Liners within Concrete Pipes

2025· article· en· W4407405366 on OpenAlexaff
Russell J. Jackson, Ian D. Moore, Aikaterini S. Genikomsou

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Pipeline Systems Engineering and Practice · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground Structures
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCementitiousStructural engineeringGeotechnical engineeringForensic engineeringEngineeringCivil engineeringMaterials scienceCementComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many reinforced concrete pipes currently in service are experiencing unsafe levels of deterioration, and if left unattended may become susceptible to collapse. Rather than proceeding with full replacements, many municipalities opt to rehabilitate damaged concrete pipes using trenchless technologies. For example, the application of cementitious liners can avoid the costly excavations and traffic impediments associated with the installation of new pipes, while restoring the structural integrity and guarding against further deterioration. The design methods previously proposed provide guidance for selecting the required cementitious liner thickness to rehabilitate damaged concrete pipes such that the repaired pipe will remain protected from stormwater ingress and further deterioration. These calculations were based on limiting the tensile strains within the liner at the pipe crown that result from the bending moments induced by earth loading. However, that design approach operates on the assumption of perfect bond between the liner and the host pipe where the effects of debonding were not explored. In the current study, the design method is supplemented by additional calculation procedures addressing the debonded condition. Sample calculations for the debonded condition are presented for the rehabilitation of several pipe geometries experiencing varying levels of deterioration. These calculations indicate the existence of unsafe ranges of liner thickness for the debonded condition. The bounds of these unsafe ranges of liner thickness depend on the curvatures resulting from earth loading and the length of the moment arm within the liner (spanning from the neutral axis to the extreme fiber experiencing tension). The calculation procedures in the current study should be used to verify whether the liner thicknesses suggested from the bonded version of the design method become unsafe if debonding were to occur. The calculations also show the potential benefits of actively facilitating debonding within the liner.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.944
Threshold uncertainty score0.761

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.229 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Pipeline Systems Engineering and PracticeSame topicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground StructuresFrench-language works237,207