Experimental behaviour of concrete box culverts — comparison with current codes of practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is now accepted that current expeditious models for determining earth pressures on flexible underground structures under compacted layers do not include several technical nuances of the soil–structure interaction. Thus, these models are not capable of delivering an optimized design. The present paper compares the results from the well-known American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) model with two different numerical models — a user-friendly elastic model and a more robust finite element model — and with results retrieved from a full-scale monitoring of a concrete box culvert, 5.5 m high and 3.77 m width, over which a 15 m high embankment was built. This structure was instrumented selectively, over a period of almost 1 year, during which several parameters were recorded, including earth pressures and structural deformation. Results have shown that the two most significant drawbacks associated with the use of the AASHTO model are the inadequate evaluation of vertical pressure on the top slab and the coefficient of earth pressure, which results in a significant overestimation of the lateral pressures and, consequently, in an overall inefficient design of the structure.
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 | 0.000 | 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 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".