MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4378893199 · doi:10.1108/rs-03-2023-0011

Stability evaluation method of large cross-section tunnel considering modification of thickness-span ratio in mechanized operation

2023· article· en· W4378893199 on OpenAlexaff
Junru Zhang, Yumeng Liu, Bo Yan

Bibliographic record

VenueRailway Sciences · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Analysis
Canadian institutionsMinistry of Transportation of Ontario
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpan (engineering)Safety factorStructural engineeringDeflection (physics)Geotechnical engineeringExcavationStability (learning theory)Factor of safetyStrength reductionGeologyEngineeringComputer scienceFinite element method

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose This study aims to research the large cross-section tunnel stability evaluation method corrected after considering the thickness-span ratio. Design/methodology/approach First, taking the Liuyuan Tunnel of Huanggang-Huangmei High-Speed Railway as an example and taking deflection of the third principal stress of the surrounding rock at a vault after tunnel excavation as the criterion, the critical buried depth of the large section tunnel was determined. Then, the strength reduction method was employed to calculate the tunnel safety factor under different rock classes and thickness-span ratios, and mathematical statistics was conducted to identify the relationships of the tunnel safety factor with the thickness-span ratio and the basic quality (BQ) index of the rock for different rock classes. Finally, the influences of thickness-span ratio, groundwater, initial stress of rock and structural attitude factors were considered to obtain the corrected BQ, based on which the stability of a large cross-section tunnel with a depth of more than 100 m during mechanized operation was analyzed. This evaluation method was then applied to Liuyuan Tunnel and Cimushan No. 2 Tunnel of Chongqing Urban Expressway for verification. Findings This study shows that under different rock classes, the tunnel safety factor is a strict power function of the thickness-span ratio, while a linear function of the BQ to some extent. It is more suitable to use the corrected BQ as a quantitative index to evaluate tunnel stability according to the actual conditions of the site. Originality/value The existing industry standards do not consider the influence of buried depth and span in the evaluation of tunnel stability. The stability evaluation method of large section tunnel considering the correction of overburden span ratio proposed in this paper achieves higher accuracy for the stability evaluation of surrounding rock in a full or large-section mechanized excavation of double line high-speed railway tunnels.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.389
Threshold uncertainty score0.321

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.070
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.283 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRailway SciencesSame topicGeotechnical Engineering and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207