Earth pressures on twin positive projecting and induced trench box culverts under high embankments
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although twin culverts are often preferred for watercourse crossing, little is known about the earth pressures they experience under high embankments. Centrifuge test results have been used in this research to verify a numerical model used to evaluate culvert spacing and compressible zone geometry for twin positive projecting and induced trench box culverts. Lower pressures were calculated for twin positive projecting culverts than for a single culvert. For the induced trench case, one compressible zone spanning both culverts was the preferred geometry for culverts spaced at 0.5B c and 1.0B c (where B c is the culvert width), while two zones 1.2B c wide were found to be optimal for 1.5B c spacing. The twin configurations generally resulted in slightly higher vertical and lower lateral earth pressures than a single culvert configuration. The base contact pressures were 25%–76% greater than the top pressure plus dead load because of shear stresses mobilized along the sidewalls; however, they were 41%–47% lower than the pressures for positive projecting configurations. The maximum bending moments calculated for the induced trench culverts were 54%–59% lower than for the positive projecting ones. Induced trench construction therefore appears to be viable for twin box culverts, provided that frictional forces along the sidewalls are taken into account.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it