Evaluation of induced trench twin culverts constructed in deep fill
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When culverts are installed beneath high embankments, earth loads become excessive and the induced trench construction method is a viable design option to reduce the culvert loads to acceptable levels. However, limited field studies evaluating the performance of induced trench twin culverts are reported in the literature and the practicality and effectiveness of the induced trench construction method (in general) has been subject to recent criticism. This paper describes the performance of twin 3048 mm inside-diameter reinforced concrete culverts constructed with an induced trench beneath 15.3 m of fill. Research instruments and autonomous data acquisition systems were installed during construction to monitor (i) culvert earth pressures, (ii) embankment deformations, and (iii) groundwater elevations in the vicinity of the compressible fill. The experimental observations recorded throughout the construction phase are presented herein; the embankment deformations are indicative of effective positive arching within the induced trench region, and the average earth pressure at the culvert crown was reduced to approximately 48% of the overburden soil pressure. The experimental data are compared with those reported in the literature by others, and the conclusions attained from this study demonstrate the effectiveness of the induced trench construction method.
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".