Combined effects of reinforcement and prefabricated vertical drains on embankment performance
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The behaviour of geosynthetic-reinforced embankments constructed over soft cohesive soils installed with prefabricated vertical drains (PVDs) is investigated by numerically examining an embankment constructed over different foundation soils. The partial consolidation during embankment construction, the consequent shear strength gain of the foundation soil, and the effect of the use of reinforcement on the mobilization of shear strength are examined. It is shown that the combined use of reinforcement and PVDs can significantly increase embankment stability and potentially allow the rapid construction of higher embankments than could be achieved with either method of soil improvement alone. Construction rate and spacing of PVDs can significantly affect the degree of consolidation at the end of construction and the stability of the embankment. For the situation examined, the effect of well resistance of typical vertical drains is insignificant. A relatively simple method for calculating the degree of consolidation and the strength gain of the foundation soil during construction is evaluated based on finite element results and is shown to be reasonably conservative. A design procedure is proposed to combine the design of reinforcement and PVDs.Key words: soft clay, prefabricated vertical drain, reinforcement, embankment stability, consolidation, strength gain.
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it