A new theoretical method to evaluate the internal stability of granular soils
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The geotextile filter design is particularly complex when granular base soils are internally unstable. In these conditions, the design criteria available in literature are not always reliable. This paper deals with a new theoretical method developed to evaluate the internal stability of granular soils. To simulate, theoretically, the filtration process inside these soils, a set of spherical particles and different soil relative densities have been considered. The soil has been represented by means of a sequence of parallel layers, containing constrictions and particles, placed upon each other at a distance, in the direction of hydraulic flow, which is a function of the soil relative density. The movement of the fine particles through the different soil layers has been simulated by means of a mechanism that compares each particle contained in the i layer with the constrictions contained in the next i + 1 layer. The results of the numerical simulations were used to evaluate the internal stability of the analyzed granular soil and the corresponding critical diameter of suffusion, Dc. Finally, the reliability of the proposed theoretical method was evaluated by means of the results of experimental long-term filtration tests performed using a rigid-wall permeameter on different unstable granular soils.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".