MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Some Design Considerations for Embankments on Rate Sensitive Soils

2002· article· en· W2076883071 on OpenAlexafffund
Allen Lunzhu Li, R. Kerry Rowe

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Analysis
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsGeotechnical engineeringSoil waterFoundation (evidence)LeveeStiffnessShallow foundationStrain rateCreepEnvironmental scienceGeologyMaterials scienceSoil scienceEngineeringBearing capacityStructural engineeringComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Both the short-term and long-term behavior of reinforced embankments constructed on rate sensitive foundation soils is investigated. Factors such as the rate sensitive properties of the foundation soil, reinforcement stiffness, construction rates, and different foundation soil profiles are considered. The strain rate at which the foundation soils deform during and after embankment construction is examined. For embankments on these soils the analysis indicates that the critical stage with respect to stability occurs during a period of creep and stress relaxation in the foundation soils after construction. The strain rate corresponding to this critical stage controls the operational shear strength of rate sensitive foundation soils and this strain rate falls into a relatively small range of values for the wide range of conditions examined. A technique that allows a conventional undrained limit equilibrium analysis to be modified to allow the design of reinforced embankments over rate sensitive foundation soils is proposed based on the critical stage concept.

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 score0.284
Threshold uncertainty score0.831

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.182
Teacher spread0.167 · 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

Citations18
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental EngineeringSame topicGeotechnical Engineering and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207