Field Performance and Analysis of 3-m-Diameter Induced Trench Culvert under a 19.4-m Soil Cover
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An induced trench installation was instrumented to monitor earth pressures and settlements during construction. Some of the unique features of this case study are as follows: (a) both contact and earth pressure cells were used; (b) part of the culvert is under a new embankment and part was installed in a wide trench within an existing embankment; (c) a large stockpile was temporarily placed over the induced trench; and (d) the compressible material was placed in two stages. The maximum vertical pressure measured in the field at the crown of the culvert was 0.24 times the overburden pressure. The maximum horizontal pressure measured on the side of the culvert at the springline was 0.45 times the overburden pressure. The column of soil directly above the compressible zone settled approximately 40% more than did the adjacent fill. The field results at the crown and springline compared reasonably with those observed with numerical modeling. However, the overall pressure distribution on the pipe was expected to be nonuniform, the average vertical pressure calculated by using numerical analysis on top of the culvert over its full width was 0.61 times the overburden pressure, and the average horizontal pressure calculated on the side of the culvert over its full height was 0.44 times the overburden pressure. When the full pressure distribution on the pipe is considered, the recommended design loads from the Marston–Spangler theory slightly underpredict the maximum loads, and the vertical loads control the design.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".