Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bermed excavation (deep excavation supported by an excavation wall and a berm) can be an economical method for basement construction in urban areas if ground movement around the excavation is not the primary concern and the excavation site is large and (or) irregular in shape. This paper reviews three bermed excavation projects carried out in the Taipei Basin. One project was successful, one was successful after near failure, and one was a failure. Ironically, extensive ground improvement work had been done for the near-failure and failure cases; but no ground improvement was done for the successful case. It is of interest to find the similarities and differences among these bermed excavation projects. The causes of instability that result in unsuccessful bermed excavation projects and the applications of limit equilibrium analysis to the stability of bermed excavation are also discussed here. These three cases show that the existence of grout columns does not help to effectively increase the stability of the berm if the original safety factor against sliding of a berm slope is less than 1.0 and the improvement ratio of grout columns is low (say <20%).
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".