Influence of twin stacked tunnels on the performance of laterally loaded pile group
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research utilized three-dimensional centrifuge model experiments and back-analyses with a hypoplastic model to assess the performance of a laterally loaded 2 × 2 pile group subjected to twin stacked tunnelling at different depths. The first tunnel was excavated near the pile shaft ( C/ D = 1.5), and the second tunnel was placed either near the pile toe, below the pile group, or directly underneath it in tests CD1.5_2.7, CD1.5_3.7B, and CD1.5_3.7U, respectively. A parametric study was also conducted to examine the effects of various factors on the pile group responses, including the tunnelling sequence, lateral load direction, tunnel volume loss, and the tunnel depth and location. The results revealed that the most significant lateral movement occurred in test CD1.5_3.7U, while the highest tilting (0.98%) was observed in test CD1.5_3.7B. The first tunnel induced “dragload” due to negative skin friction. Excavating the deeper tunnel before the shallower one significantly reduced cumulative lateral pile cap movements and tilting. The direction of lateral load significantly affected lateral movement and bending moment distribution along the pile. Additionally, the depth and location of the tunnel relative to the pile group were crucial in determining the induced lateral displacement and bending moment at the pile head.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".