Evaluation of ground loss ratio with moving trajectories induced in double-O-tube (DOT) tunnelling
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
This paper investigates the influence of moving trajectories on ground loss ratio (GRL) due to the double-O-tube (DOT) tunnelling method. DOT tunnelling has three moving trajectories: pitching, yawing, and rolling, which have different behaviours during tunnel construction compared with those from single circular shield tunnelling. These moving trajectories cause overexcavation during tunnelling. The calculation method of gap area between the DOT shield machine and linings is evaluated in this research. Based on the superposition concept, the modification equation of GLR is proposed, which takes both moving trajectory and grouting volume into consideration. A field DOT tunnelling case is analysed to determine the correlation between moving trajectories and ground settlement. The influence of tail grouting is discussed by adjusting the grouting volume in different periods. The finite element method is also employed by setting the modified ground loss ratio (GLR′) as the contraction increment of linings. Results from both the measured and simulated settlements verify the reasonability of the proposed equation and the effect of moving trajectories on ground loss.
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 | 0.002 | 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