A Retrospective of 15 Years of Spray-Applied Geopolymer Mortar Linings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For buried infrastructure, conventional dig and replace has become a very expensive option for rehabilitating aging pipes. Over the past 50 years, the use of trenchless technologies has provided an affordable means of extending the life of storm and sanitary pipes. Over the last 15 years, the use of spray-applied pipe lining (SAPL), utilizing cementitious mortars, specifically geopolymers, has become a more preferred method of choice for rehabilitating large-diameter pipes and other buried structures. This paper reviews the history of over 500,000 linear ft of large-diameter pipes (>36″) and structures that have been structurally lined using this method around the globe. An overview of the advances in materials, spray distance, pumping distance, and equipment will be reviewed in detail, showing the evolution of the technology. The environmental impact of geopolymers in reducing greenhouse gas emissions by more than 75% compared to traditional cementitious materials, as well as the additional environmental advantages of the installation process compared with traditional and other trenchless processes, will be examined. The advances in standards, including ASTM, NASSCO, WRc, and others will be reviewed. In addition, the movement towards accepted design methodologies backed by detailed structural testing will be reviewed. Finally, several of the most interesting projects are highlighted, including a test project for the USEPA and others in the City of Houston, two phases of restoration of a trunk sewer in Ontario totaling over 10,000 linear ft of lining, as well as several smaller culvert projects conducted in Florida.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.006 |
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".