EPB tunnelling through clay‐sand mixed soils: Proposed methodology for clogging evaluation
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
Abstract The clogging of Tunnel Boring Machine (TBM) tools by soils has long been investigated, owing to the numerous difficulties arising in shield tunnelling as a result. Its occurrence leads to operation delays owing to the frequent and lengthy interventions required to unblock the soil stuck to the excavation tools and screw conveyor. Several authors have proposed laboratory tests for evaluating the clogging potential, however, those include limitations, such as not considering the clay fraction in a soil. One of these methods is the empirical stickiness evaluation, whereby a mixer and a beater are used to define a clogging evaluation parameter. Following an extended test campaign using soils with different clay contents and minerals, it became clear that this method was not adequate to provide reliable information regarding the tendency of a soil to clog in a tunnel drive. A new device was then implemented, which adds to the first method a kinetic energy impulse via dropping of the beater from a certain height. This combination of methods could provide a reasonable approximation of the potential for clogging to occur along Earth Pressure Balance Machine (EPB) tunnel drives. This paper presents the results of the proposed combined methodology for clogging evaluation, as well as the research evolution that led to the addition of the beater dropping stage.
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 | 0.003 | 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 | 0.001 | 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