MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1981069981 · doi:10.1139/t08-084

Performance of soil nails in Dublin glacial till

2008· article· en· W1981069981 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
C. O. Menkiti, Michael Long

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil Stabilization
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSoil nailingGeotechnical engineeringExcavationNail (fastener)Glacial periodGeologyEngineeringStructural engineeringGeomorphology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Soil nailing is being used in many projects in glacial tills in Ireland, particularly to provide temporary support to steep slopes. Little design guidance is available for such materials, and it is known that the application of design procedures developed for other material is conservative. Detailed nail instrumentation and field monitoring has been undertaken during large-scale soil nailing works for the Dublin Port Tunnel project. It was found that the short-term behaviour of nails was the reverse of that assumed in current design methods. Most of the load was induced as a results of drilling and nailing the lift immediately below the nail being monitored rather than due to excavation-induced stress relief. The highest forces were developed in the upper nails where the largest ground movements occurred. This is the reverse of most current design methods where the highest soil–nail bond is assigned to the deepest nails. It seems that the observed short-term, prefailure behaviour of nailed slopes is governed more by the deformation pattern of the slope than by large-scale development of failed wedges. Current design procedures should be reviewed. Despite this, the trial confirmed that the currently used procedures are highly conservative for Dublin glacial till.

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)0.000
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 score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score0.550

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.177
Teacher spread0.168 · 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

Citations19
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Geotechnical JournalSame topicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil StabilizationFrench-language works237,207