Passive Earth Pressures on Retaining Walls for Pit-in-Pit Excavations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The technique of pit-in-pit excavations is increasingly used in China to provide an efficient solution of maximizing the utilization of underground space while minimizing the amount of solid waste due to excavations. One of the critical steps toward the successful implementation of the pit-in-pit excavation technique is to rationally estimate the passive earth pressure, which is typically done using approaches such as numerical modeling, field monitoring, or traditional Coulomb or Rankine earth pressure theories. This paper presents a simplified approach for computing passive earth pressures for pit-in-pit excavations. A trapezoidal-shaped failure wedge is formed between two levels of retaining walls. A complete symmetric soil arch is used to describe the stress field of soils in the rectangular zone, whereas a half arch with one base acting on the wall and another base acting on the inclined shear surface is proposed for soils in the triangular zone. The soil arching effect is explicitly considered to derive the earth pressure for both cohesionless and cohesive soils at any intermediate passive state. A parametric study is conducted to demonstrate that the mobilized passive earth pressure increases nonlinearly with the magnitude of wall movement and soil shear strength parameters. The allowable spacing between two walls is also defined to produce a design chart. In the end, the proposed model is assessed against experimental measurements from model-scale tests.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".