Radial consolidation of clay using compressibility indices and varying horizontal permeability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A system of vertical drains, with surcharge load to accelerate consolidation by shortening the drainage path, is one of the most popular methods of soft ground improvement. The conventional radial consolidation theory (including smear and well resistance) has been commonly used to predict the behaviour of vertical drains in soft clay. Its mathematical formulation is based on the small strain theory; and for a given stress range, a constant volume compressibility (mv) and a constant coefficient of horizontal permeability (kh) are assumed. However, the value of mvvaries along the consolidation curve over a wide range of applied pressure (Δp). In the same manner, khalso changes with the void ratio (e). In this paper, the writers have replaced mvwith the compressibility indices (Ccand Cr), which define the slopes of the e log σ′ relationship. Moreover, the variation of the horizontal permeability coefficient (kh) with the void ratio (e) during consolidation is represented by the e log khrelationship that has a slope of Ck. In contrast to the conventional analysis, the current study highlights the influence of the Cc/Ck(or Cr/Ck) ratio and the preloading increment ratio (Δp/σi) on the consolidation process. The analytical predictions are compared with the experimental results when a large-scale consolidation chamber was used, and these predictions show good agreement with the measured data. Finally, an embankment case history taken from Muar Plains, Malaysia, is analysed on the basis of the current solution and compared with field measurements.Key words: compressibility, embankments, permeability, soft soils, soil consolidation, vertical drains.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 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".