Vérification en chantier de l'installation d'un ponceau en béton selon la méthode SIDD = On-site verification of concrete culvert installations using the SIDD method
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The rehabilitation or replacement of culverts is an issue of concern to more and more system owners. Through a joint initiative of the Institute for Research in Construction (IRC), the Ontario Concrete Pipe Association (OCPA), the Ontario Ministry of Transportation (MTO) and the City of Ottawa, an ongoing study was carried out on the behaviour of concrete drainage pipes installed using the Standard Installations Direct Design (SIDD) method rather than the traditional Marston-Spangler method. The project began in the summer of 2000 and continued for three years. Its purpose was to perform a field study to verify the distribution of the pressures in the ground around the pipe as well as the stresses on the pipe wall. Two pipe sections, installed according to type 2 and type 3 of the SIDD method, were therefore fitted with pressure cells and deformation gages linked to an automated data gathering system. The measurements obtained as a result were compared with pressure distribution diagrams and maximum stresses proposed by Heger, the basic principles of the SIDD method. The findings showed that, for the two types of installations studied, the pressure readings compare reasonably to those associated with the SIDD method. As for the values of the stresses in the pipe, the field measurements were generally fairly close to the values put forward by the SIDD method. This presentation also features a summaryof the characteristics of the SIDD and Marston-Spangler methods.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
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".