Experimental study on the pullout resistance of pressure-grouted soil nails in the field
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The pullout behaviour of cement-grouted soil nails, particularly in field conditions, is not yet fully understood. In this study, a series of tests was conducted to evaluate the pullout response of grouted soil nails in a field slope. A new innovative grouting packer system was developed to control the grouted length and maintain the cement grout pressure of the grouted part. By using the grouting packer system, a total of 10 soil nails placed at different soil depths were grouted with different pressures in the field. The pullout results of present field tests and a number of past laboratory tests indicate that the apparent coefficient of friction (ACF) decreases with the increase of overburden stress even though grouting pressure is applied. In addition, when the overburden stress is unchanged, the obtained ACF values in the field tests appear to increase almost linearly with the increase of grouting pressure. After the soil nails were completely pulled out of the ground, the surfaces of the soil nails and surrounding soil were examined. It is found that the water content of the soil samples at the soil–nail interfaces decrease substantially compared to the water content of soil samples in drill holes. Measurement results also show that the failure surfaces of soil nails shifted about 16 mm on average into the surrounding soil due to the application of grouting pressure.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".