MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2030793258 · doi:10.1139/t08-135

Evolution of the factor of safety following excavation in clay

2009· article· en· W2030793258 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Jean‐Sébastien L’Heureux, Serge Leroueil, Jonathan Laflamme

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalMinistère des Transports
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeotechnical engineeringExcavationConsolidation (business)Pore water pressureClay soilGeologyFactor of safetySafety factorSoil waterSoil science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Numerical analyses have been performed to study the evolution of the factor of safety following the excavation of a cut in clay. The analyses consider variable thickness of the clayey soil deposit under the excavation. The results show that, for a given clayey soil, there is a relation between the time for full dissipation of excess pore-water pressure from the soil mass following the excavation and the geometry of the cut (H tot /H exc ). The analytical results agree reasonably well with pore pressure measurements made in excavations in clay deposits from eastern Canada. This suggests that time to reach full pore pressure equilibration following the excavation of a cut in homogenous clayey soil deposits can be predicted when knowledge of the coefficient of swelling–consolidation is available. Lastly, results obtained in the present study show that 50% of the difference between the short- and long-term factors of safety may be lost at values as low as about 8% of the time to reach equilibration of pore pressures. This means that the time during which one can rely on the short-term strength of the clayey soil following the excavation may be relatively short, especially for soft clays.

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 score0.345
Threshold uncertainty score0.297

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.183
Teacher spread0.178 · 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

Citations10
Published2009
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Geotechnical JournalSame topicGeotechnical Engineering and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207