Performance of an asymmetric pit-in-pit excavation supported by diaphragm wall and multi uplift piles system in coastal areas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The performance of asymmetric pit-in-pit excavation supported by diaphragm wall and multi uplift piles in coastal areas has been rarely reported. In this work, a case study is conducted to investigate the mechanical characteristics of such excavation. A numerical model is established using the ABAQUS finite element platform, and its effectiveness is evaluated by comparing with the field monitoring data. After evaluation, the effects of uplift piles on excavation-induced deformations are investigated. The results show that the maximum wall deflections ( δ hm ) are 0.02%–0.22% of the excavation depth ( H e ), with the ground surface settlements of less than 0.6%· H e and the settlement influence zone extending beyond 4 H e . As the soil is excavated, the top wall shows outward deformations to the active zone, and the transverse support is under tension. The use of combined diaphragm wall and multi uplift piles reduces the embedment ratio of diaphragm wall to a minimum value of 0.14 and decreases the δ hm and rebound of base soil ( δ vrm ) by 42% and 63%, respectively. A design suggestion is proposed for pile diameter ( D), pile length ( L), and pile spacing ( S) to fall within the range of 0.4–0.8 m, 10–20 m and 6–8 D, respectively.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".