Evaluation of ground and building settlement near braced excavation sites by model testing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Braced excavations inevitably result in deformation of the adjacent ground and settlement of adjacent buildings behind the wall. Building settlement is believed to exceed the amount of associated ground settlement because of the additional settlement under building weight. This is due to a decrease in stiffness of the foundation soil that is caused by lateral movement of the excavation face. To quantify the amount of building settlement, model testing was conducted to determine the magnitude of the additional settlement due to the structure and the effect of varying the building's depth in the ground and of its distance away from the excavation wall. The building's settlement, when at ground level, was found to be up to 500% more than that of ground with no structure on it. This is for the case when the building's centroid on the ground surface is located within Rankine's active zone. When the building was embedded in the ground the degree of additional settlement decreases very rapidly, becoming negligible if the building is embedded at more than one half of the excavation depth. Additional model testing was conducted to estimate the extent of the soil improvement zone required to protect structures adjacent to an excavation. From the model testing results, soil improvement should be performed to reduce building settlement when the building's centroid is located in the excavation influence zone. The zone for this soil improvement is determined by setting the distance away from the excavation wall to be equal to the depth of the excavation.Key words: braced excavations, model testing, ground settlement, additional settlement volume, angular distortion, soil improvement.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".