Simple solutions for square and rectangular cofferdam seepage problems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cofferdams are widely used temporary structures at construction sites. Two of the main parameters required in designing a cofferdam are the flow rate and exit hydraulic gradient at the bottom of the excavation. Commonly, these two parameters are evaluated by using two-dimensional (2D) ground water flow models. However, when the flow pattern is three-dimensional (3D), such as flow into the square or rectangular cofferdams, predictions by the 2D models underestimate the flow rate and exit gradients considerably. Therefore, it is necessary to incorporate the 3D flow effect through a correction factor. It is shown that treating a square cofferdam as a circular one of the same width or treating a rectangular cofferdam as a 2D double-walled cofferdam significantly underestimates the flow rate. In this study, simple expressions are developed and validated for accurately estimating the flow rate and exit hydraulic gradient values of square and rectangular cofferdams, based on hundreds of finite element simulations in both 2D and 3D. It is suggested that the expressions given in the Canadian foundation engineering manual be improved.
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 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 | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".