Face failure of EPB shield tunnels in dry dense sand: a model test and DEM study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aims at addressing the face failure of earth pressure balance (EPB) shield tunnels in dry dense sand by model tests and discrete element method (DEM) models. The model tests incorporated a miniature EPB shield which could fully reproduce the real tunnel construction of excavation and support. DEM models simulating the model tests were developed to capture the underlying face failure mechanism. Results show that both the limit support pressure obtained at chamber board and tunnel face increase with increasing C/ D ( C is tunnel cover depth, and D is tunnel diameter). The ratio of the former to the latter approximates 0.60 due to the soil retaining of cutter head panel, and it is independent of C/ D. The local face failure initializes around tunnel face and develops directly to the global failure outcropping the ground surface in one phase with C/ D ≤ 1.0, while the local failure develops to the global failure in three phases with C/ D = 2.0 due to the soil arching evolution. The soil arching gets weaker when it propagates upward, and the horizontal stress concentration in the longitudinal direction is stronger than the transverse direction due to the difference of arch foot.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".