Tool Based on the Network Method for the Verification against Failure by Piping on Retaining Structures
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the design of retaining structures, different geotechnical phenomena must be studied so they can be classified as safe. One of them is pipping, which is a physical process related to seepage under the structure. It leads to unstable situations that might finally end in a failure of the structure. As a way to quantify this risk, an accepted calculation is to compare the critical and the estimated hydraulic gradient. This comparison depends on the geometrical scenario, geotechnical parameters and flow conditions. However, the majority of the available solutions, such as formulations and graphics, have been developed only considering isotropic soils, which means that no realistic results can be obtained since media are commonly anisotropic. The aim of this paper is to provide a methodology with which an estimation of the average exit gradient can be obtained employing a computational model based on the network method. It consists on the analogy between electrical quantities (voltage and intensity) and geotechnical variables, which are water head and groundwater flow. The safety factor is calculated in the same way whether the considered soil is isotropic or anisotropic, and, in this way, the structure can be classified as safe from a geotechnical point of view.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 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 it