Bibliographic record
Abstract
Soil–steel bridges are built of flexible corrugated steel panels buried in well-compacted granular soil. Their design is based on the composite interaction between the soil pressures and the displacements of the conduit wall. The structure failure could be initiated by shear or tension failure in the soil cover above the steel conduit. The provisions for design given in different codes, such as the Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code, managed to avoid some of the problems associated with the failure of soil above soil–steel bridges by requiring a minimum depth of soil cover over the crown of the conduit taking into consideration the geometric shape of the conduit. However, the present code requirements for a minimum depth of cover were developed for a maximum span of 7.62 m and using nonstiffened panels of 51 mm depth of corrugation. The effect of having larger spans or using more rigid corrugated panels has not been examined before and is the subject of this paper. The present study uses the finite-element analysis to re-examine the possible soil failures due to centric live loads (i.e., loads acting symmetrically about the mid span of conduit) or eccentric live loads. The study deals with spans up to 15.24 m of circular conduits and 21.3 m of arches with deep corrugations. It has been found that, in addition to the conduit geometry, the actual dimension of the span should be considered to determine the required depth of soil cover.
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 | 0.000 | 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 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".