MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388750952 · doi:10.1139/cgj-2023-0394

In-situ test and calculation method for horizontal deformation of soil induced by multi-row grouting

2023· article· en· W4388750952 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Xuesong Cheng, Linsong Zhao, Shengzhang Han, Yetao Ji, Zhaorong Xu, Lingbo Meng, Jun Pan, Gang Zheng, Ruikun Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGrouting, Rheology, and Soil Mechanics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsGeotechnical engineeringPore water pressureDeformation (meteorology)Displacement (psychology)GeologyElectromagnetic shieldingMaterials scienceComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Multi-row grouting can be used to repeatedly mitigate the deformation of critical structures such as tunnels. Nevertheless, no comprehensive investigation into the development patterns of soil deformation and excess pore water pressure, induced by multi-row grouting in soft soil, has been conducted to date. To address this gap, this study carried out a field test of multi-row grouting, systematically exploring the evolution and accumulation of soil horizontal displacement (SHD) and excess pore water pressure (EPWP) resulting from multi-row grouting. The findings demonstrated that the grouting process during multi-row grouting exerted reaction and shielding effects on the subsequent grouting for the behavior of soil surrounding the grouting area. The reaction and shielding effects increased proportionally with the number of grouted rows. To predict the SHD induced by multi-row grouting, considering the reaction and shielding effects, this study provided a theoretical calculation method based on cavity expansion theory and the concept of upper and lower bounds and proposed an optimal grouting scheme.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.850
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.237 · 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

Citations8
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Geotechnical JournalSame topicGrouting, Rheology, and Soil MechanicsFrench-language works237,207