MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2775021374 · doi:10.2749/222137817822208717

Soil-Structure-Pipe Interaction Analysis and Inelastic Design of the Port Mann Water Supply Tunnel Shaft and Pipe – Case Study

2017· article· en· W2775021374 on OpenAlexaffabout
John Sherstobitoff, Derek Zimmerman, Upul Atukorala, Allen Mitchell

Bibliographic record

VenueReport · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground Structures
Canadian institutionsGolder Associates (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeotechnical engineeringStructural engineeringPort (circuit theory)EngineeringMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The new Port Mann Water Supply Tunnel in Metro Vancouver, BC, Canada is a 1km long, 60m deep, 2.1m diameter water main constructed under the Fraser River through liquefiable soil. The tunnel, shafts and pipe are designed to withstand ground motions with a 10,000 year return period and continue to deliver water. Non-linear time history analysis of the soils predicts approximately 6m of lateral movement for the design seismic event. Soil-structure interaction analyses indicated conventional design was ineffective for both the shaft and the 60m free-standing steel water pipe within one shaft. A unique hybrid inelastic design was used to enable the steel pipe to realize very high inelastic strains and the concrete shaft to yield to accommodate the soil induced demand. The design required special grades of high ductility steel and innovative details to de-couple the concrete shaft from concrete shoring walls to limit demands on the shaft.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.045

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.226 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designCase report
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReportSame topicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground StructuresFrench-language works237,207