Numerical modeling of vertical drains with smear and well resistance installed in soft clay
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study describes the behavior of embankments stabilized with prefabricated vertical drains installed in soft clay foundations, based on several fully instrumented case histories selected from Thailand and Malaysia. A multidrain analysis is conducted based on an equivalent, plane strain model developed by the authors. The deformation of soft clay beneath an embankment (i.e., along and away from the centerline) is predicted and compared with the available field measurements. The effects of both smear and well resistance are incorporated in the analytical formulation, which is used in conjunction with the modified Cam-clay theory. It is demonstrated that the installation of vertical drains significantly increases the rate of settlement, improves the dissipation of pore-water pressure, and decreases the lateral deformation of the soft clay foundation. To obtain better predictions, especially of pore pressures and lateral displacements, the equivalent discharge capacity of the drains needs to be modeled appropriately. The inclusion of the effects of smear and well resistance in the analysis of vertical drains improves the accuracy of predictions significantly, in comparison with the field measurements.Key words: clay, consolidation, embankment, finite element method, settlement, smear zone, vertical drain.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".