Design Methodology to Evaluate Hydraulic Jacking in Pressure Tunnels
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 presents methodology and tools for use in evaluation of potential hydraulic jacking in the concrete-lined section of a pressurized headrace tunnel immediately adjacent to a steel-lined tunnel section. The locations of potential in situ stress deficiency in the rock mass are uncertain but could be located in the transition section. Therefore, the performance of reinforced concrete-lining in the transition zone and elsewhere are evaluated for hydraulic jacking. The evaluation of hydraulic jacking was performed by using finite element method (FEM) and discrete element method (DEM). The computer programs ABAQUS and UDEC were used for FEM and DEM analyses, respectively. In addition to the analytical approach, a review of the available approaches focusing on the performance of concrete-lined pressure tunnels was performed. The response of the tunnel system including the lining and surrounding rock mass was evaluated for various scenarios. The evaluation includes: (1) extent of hydrojacking; (2) exfiltration from the tunnels; and (3) structural stability of the tunnel system. A series of sensitivity analyses were performed using numerical modeling to parametrically evaluate the influence of rock mass joint variations on the results.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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