Shadowing effect of an existing tunnel on the evolution of soil arching: impact of tunnel shape
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study evaluates the shadowing effect of existing tunnels on the evolution of soil arching, focusing on the shape of the tunnel (circular and rectangular) through trapdoor experiments. The displacement and shear strain distributions of ground soil resulting from trapdoor movement were estimated using a digital image correlation technique. The results showed that the shadowing effect of the rectangular tunnel was significantly greater than that of the circular tunnel of the same size. The sand above the tunnel was displaced in a double-groove pattern owing to the presence of the tunnel, and the maximum surface settlement occurred between the tunnel boundary and the trapdoor edge. The circular tunnels exhibited consistently higher maximum surface displacements than that in the rectangular tunnels. The shear strain value of soil was lower for the rectangular tunnel case than that for the circular tunnel case. The rectangular tunnels required lesser trapdoor displacement than that of the circular tunnel to obtain the minimum soil arching ratio. The minimum and ultimate soil arching ratios increased as the burial depth ratio increased for both the tunnel shapes. The maximum stress ratio of the tunnel crown was consistently larger for the circular case than for the rectangular case.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".