Initiation and failure mechanism of base instability of excavations in clay triggered by hydraulic uplift
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Excavations in clay overlying an aquifer may cause catastrophic basal failure due to hydraulic uplift. Although case histories with hydraulic uplift failures are reported worldwide from time to time, the initiation and failure mechanism of the base instability are not well studied and understood. To address these two issues, dimensional analysis is firstly conducted to propose dimensionless groups (DGs) possibly relevant to this subject. Effects of these DGs on the initiation and failure mechanism of base instability are then investigated, by carrying out a series of finite element analyses, in which constitutive models and model parameters have been previously validated against centrifuge test results. It is revealed that the initiation and failure mechanism of base instability due to hydraulic uplift is mainly governed by a ratio of excavation width over the thickness of soft clay inside excavation (B/D). As excavation becomes narrower (i.e., B/D decreases), the hydraulic pressure (P i ) required to initiate uplift movement of clay inside excavation increases significantly (maximum percentage increase = 50%), due to increased effect of downward shear stress acting along soil–wall interface on basal resistance. Based on the parametric study, a calculation chart is developed for estimating P i of excavations with varied B/D and undrained shear strength of clay. At basal failure caused by hydraulic uplift, the dominant failure mode changes from simple shear in relatively narrow excavations (i.e., B/D < 4) to combined modes of triaxial compression, triaxial extension, and simple shear in relatively wide excavations (i.e., B/D > 4).
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".