MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Tunnel-Pile Interaction Analysis Using Cavity Expansion Methods

2012· article· en· W2059750651 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Alec M. Marshall

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaTehran University of Medical Sciences and Health Services
KeywordsPileCentrifugeGeotechnical engineeringBearing capacityJackingStiffnessStructural engineeringParametric statisticsLateral earth pressureEngineeringMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Evaluation of the impact of tunnel construction on existing buried structures is an important problem. This paper presents an analytical method for estimating the effect of tunnel construction on end-bearing piles located above the tunnel. The method can be used to estimate the safe relative distance between existing piles and newly constructed tunnels. Spherical and cylindrical cavity expansion/contraction analyses are used to evaluate pile end-bearing capacity and the reduction of confining pressure at the pile tip that results from tunnel volume loss. Pile end-bearing capacity is then reevaluated based on the reduced confining pressure at the pile tip. A modified shear modulus is used to account for the effect of pile installation on soil stiffness. The method is used to analyze centrifuge experiments conducted to study this problem. For the experimental data, where the service load applied to the piles during tunnel volume loss ranged between 50 and 60% of the maximum jacking force, the analytical method showed that pile failure occurred when the load-carrying capacity was reduced below 80% of its original value. A parametric analysis is included that highlights the effect of key soil properties on results.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.244 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations80
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental EngineeringSame topicGeotechnical Engineering and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207