Vacuum and surcharge combined one-dimensional consolidation of clay soils
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, a vacuum and surcharge combined one-dimensional consolidation model is developed. Terzaghi's consolidation theory is revisited by applying the initial and boundary conditions corresponding to combined vacuum and surcharge loading on a soil. A test apparatus is designed, manufactured, and assembled to verify the model. The apparatus has the capacity of applying designated vacuum and surcharge pressures to a soil specimen, and it allows for the measurement of the excess pore-water pressure, settlement, and volume change during the consolidation process. Two series of tests are performed using the apparatus on two reconstituted natural clay soils, namely, the Welland sediment at water contents close to its liquid limit and the Orleans clay, reconstituted and consolidated under an effective stress of 60 kPa. The former test series mimics the strengthening of a very soft soil, such as the hydraulic fill used in land reclamation. The latter test series is designed to study vacuumsurcharge combined strengthening of a consolidated soil. It is demonstrated from the experiments that the one-dimensional vacuum-surcharge consolidation model describes the consolidation behaviour of both soils well. The consolidation characteristics of the soils show no discrimination against the nature of the consolidation pressure, namely, whether they are consolidated under the vacuum pressure alone, under the surcharge pressure alone, or under a pressure generated by the combined application of vacuum and surcharge. The study concluded that the soil consolidation characteristics obtained from the conventional consolidation tests can be used in the design of vacuum preloading systems, provided that the one-dimensional loading condition prevails.Key words: consolidation, soil improvement, vacuum pressure, surcharge pressure, excess pore-water pressure, soil consolidation parameters.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".