Ground response to tunnelling incorporating soil reinforcement system
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The forepole umbrella system (FUS) uses steel pipes installed from within a tunnel to provide a canopy above the tunnel heading that both increases stability and reduces tunnelling-induced ground movements. Although the system is known to be beneficial and has been used in a number of projects, there is little information on how key parameters including length and forepole stiffness combine to produce effective support. To investigate this, centrifuge tests incorporating the three-dimensional (3D) geometry of a tunnel heading in clay and the model FUS have been undertaken. The tunnel heading was supported by a pressurized rubber bag lining with excavation being simulated by a reduction in air support pressure. Image analysis was used to obtain subsurface ground movements and a newly developed 3D imaging system was used to measure the soil surface deformations accurately. The performance of the FUS and the influences of key FUS parameters were quantified via the settlement reduction factor. The results showed that the FUS, arranged in various settings, reduced the maximum surface settlement by 35%–75%. The effects of the FUS parameters on the reinforcing effectiveness are dependent on the ratio of cover depth to tunnel diameter. An optimum design arrangement of the FUS is suggested.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".