Wetting-drying behaviour of geogrid-reinforced clay under working load conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT: Large-scale plane-strain laboratory wetting–drying tests on geosynthetic-reinforced and unreinforced expansive clay specimens were performed to assess the interaction between geogrid and clay during wetting and drying. Independent vertical and lateral pressures were applied to the specimens to simulate anisotropic loading condition in the field. The wetting and drying processes were simulated by flooding the test specimens with water and subsequently removing water from the test box for drying the test specimens. Further drying of the test specimens was done by circulating warm air of about 35°C on both top and bottom of the test specimens. Geogrid reinforcement strains, soil specimen deformations, soil suctions and soil temperatures were monitored during the wetting–drying process. Additional strains were observed in the geogrid reinforcement due to a wetting–drying cycle of the expansive clay specimens. These strain levels were however considered minimal (less than 1% strain) to cause overstressing in the reinforcement. Overall, the geogrid reinforcement reduced the swelling of clay specimens.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".