MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2166456801 · doi:10.1139/t05-024

Determination of ground reaction curve for hyperbolic soil model using the hodograph method

2005· article· en· W2166456801 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sanchai Mitaim, Emmanuel Detournay

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHodographDimensionless quantityGeotechnical engineeringCurvatureBiot numberPlane stressHyperbolic functionHydrostatic equilibriumDifferential equationConstitutive equationMathematical analysisStress (linguistics)MathematicsGeometryMechanicsEngineeringStructural engineeringPhysicsFinite element method

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper reintroduces an efficient method for analyzing the problem of a deep circular tunnel and for determining the ground reaction curve (GRC). It is assumed that the tunnel is excavated in soil–rock mass subjected to a hydrostatic in situ stress field under a plane strain condition. The constitutive law for the surrounding material is assumed to follow Duncan–Chang's hyperbolic stress–strain relation. The technique for analysis is known as Biot's hodograph method, which relies on expressing principal strains as functions of principal stresses. The problem is reduced to solving a first order differential equation for the hoop stress σ θ as a function of the radial stress σ r . The GRCs are graphically presented in dimensionless form. It is shown that the hodograph method is straightforward and can be easily applied in engineering practice.Key words: circular tunnel, ground reaction curve, hyperbolic soil model, hodograph method.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.917
Threshold uncertainty score0.481

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.236 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations8
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Geotechnical JournalSame topicGeotechnical Engineering and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207