Analysis of Excavation Support Systems Considering the Influence of Saturated and Unsaturated Soil Conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A well-established framework for the design of excavation support systems (ESSs) is not available in the literature. Several guidelines that have evolved from engineering practice are conventionally used in the design of ESSs. The key indicators for judging the performance of ESSs are wall deformation, internal wall stresses, and surface soil settlement information. There is evidence from several case studies that the measured wall deformations are typically lower than the predicted values. Such behavior may be attributed to ignoring the influence of capillary suction. The key objective of the study presented in this paper is twofold; the first is highlighting limitations in the current design practice and the second is to pave the way for comprehensive design of ESSs. This is achieved by undertaking numerical analysis on a silty clay taking account of the influence of saturated and unsaturated soil conditions to investigate the performance of ESSs based on a rational design approach. In addition, the proposed approach is validated based on wall deflections information using the published results of a case history. The proposed approach is promising for implementing the mechanics of unsaturated soils in geotechnical engineering practice for the rational design of ESSs. The paper also highlights some limitations of the present study and the need for future studies to provide verifications using more case histories.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".