Controlling the performance of sliplined pipe with grouting = L'impact de l'injection de coulis sur la performance lors de la réhabilitation d'une conduite par insertion conventionnelle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Annulus grouting, or non-grouting, is often the question in the minds of municipal engineers when considering trenchless sliplining technique for pipe rehabilitation. For ease of installation in sliplining rehabilitation, the outside diameter of the liner pipe is usually at least 10% smaller than the inside diameter of the host pipe, resulting in an annular space (or annulus) between the two pipes. Currently the decision on annulus grouting is mainly based on its impact on construction and cost. Based on a three-year study on the performance of a sliplined water main in the City of Ottawa, the effect of the grout on the performance of slipline pipe is presented in this paper. The pros and cons are explained in terms of buckling resistance, potential shear failure at lateral connections, protection of liner pipe when the host pipe fails, load-carrying capacity and control of load-sharing. Furthermore, how grouting can be used to maximise the desired performance of slipline pipe, or to strengthen an existing culvert is suggested in thepaper. This paper fits well with the theme of INFRA 2003 as it shares proven solutions to sliplining rehabilitation and promotes innovation in construction to maximize pipe performance.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".