Estimating critical height of unsupported trenches in vadose zone
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Workers are often required to enter unsupported trenches during the construction process, which may present serious risks. Trench failures can result in death or damage to adjacent properties; therefore, trenches should be excavated with extreme precaution. Critical height (i.e., maximum depth that can be excavated without failure) is the most important design consideration for ensuring the stability of unsupported trenches. Because excavation work is often done in the vadose zone, the influence of matric suction should be taken into account when estimating the critical height of an unsupported trench. In this study, an attempt was made to estimate the critical heights of unsupported trenches using three distinct approaches: (i) analytical method based on the extended Rankine earth pressure theory, (ii) finite element coupled stress – pore-water pressure analysis, and (iii) limit equilibrium method (i.e., Bishop’s simplified and Morgenstern–Price method). It was assumed that the trenches were excavated in an engineered sand (Unimin 7030) and Indian Head till, which represent cohesionless and cohesive soils, respectively, considering various practical scenarios. Geotechnical modeling software, GeoStudio (ver. 2016; SIGMA/W and SLOPE/W), was used for both finite element analysis and the limit equilibrium 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".