Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper investigates the performance of a cement-stabilized retaining wall as a potentially economic solution for supporting vertical cuts in roads and embankments. This investigation was carried out through a comprehensive numerical and experimental program in which the stabilized wall was treated as a c′ϕ soil. To optimize the design of the stabilized wall, a plane-strain finite element analysis was carried out, using the PLAXIS code, in a parametric study that varied the wall geometry and the shear strength parameters for both the wall and its surrounding soil. The performance of the stabilized retaining wall was verified by a centrifuge model test carried out at an equivalent acceleration of 67g for a sand treated with 3% Portland cement. The results have shown that the load-carrying capacity of the wall is affected primarily by both the cementation of the wall and the friction angle of the surrounding soil. There exists a threshold of cementation beyond which the stability does not increase when the failure mechanism is located completely inside the in situ soil. This critical cementation appears to be a crucial factor in maintaining an economic design for this type of wall. Centrifuge test results confirmed the satisfactory behaviour of cement-stabilized retaining walls.Key words: cement stabilization, retaining wall, cohesion, finite element, centrifuge testing.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".