MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7161970071 · doi:10.82308/42314

An investigation of tunnel-soil-pile interaction in cohesive soils /

2007· dissertation· en· W7161970071 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Joe. Mattar

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExcavationFinite element methodPileFoundation (evidence)BendingScale (ratio)Soil structure interactionLateral earth pressure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Underground tunnels are considered to be a vital infrastructure component in most cities around the world. Careful planning is always necessary to ensure minimum impact on nearby surface and subsurface structures. This thesis describes the experimental and numerical investigations carried out at McGill University to examine the effect of existing pile foundation on the stresses developing in a newly constructed tunnel supported by a flexible lining system. A small scale testing facility was designed and built to simulate the process of tunnel excavation and lining installation in the close vicinity of pre-installed piles. Lining stresses were measured for different separation distances between the tunnel and the existing piles. Significant decrease in circumferential stresses was observed when the lining was installed at a distance that ranges between one to three times the tunnel diameter from the piles. Two-dimensional finite element analyses were also conducted to investigate the different aspects of the pile-soil-lining interaction including lining deformation, axial forces and bending moments. The measured lining stresses agreed with those obtained using finite element analysis. The results presented in this study provided an insight into understanding an important aspect of this soil-structure interaction problem.

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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.150
Threshold uncertainty score0.820

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.244 · 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

Citations0
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGeotechnical Engineering and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207