MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2080456754 · doi:10.12989/gae.2012.4.1.019

Analytical solution for undrained plane strain expansion of a cylindrical cavity in modified cam clay

2012· article· en· W2080456754 on OpenAlexafffund
Vincenzo Silvestri, Ghassan Abou‐Samra

Bibliographic record

VenueGeomechanics and Engineering · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil Mechanics
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPlane stressFinite element methodGeotechnical engineeringPrincipal stressStress (linguistics)MechanicsMaterials sciencePlane (geometry)Finite differencePilePore water pressureGeologyGeometryStructural engineeringMathematicsMathematical analysisEngineeringPhysicsShear stress

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents the results of analytical and numerical analyses of the effects of performing a pressuremeter test or driving a pile in clay. The geometry of the problem has been simplified by the assumptions of plane strain and axial symmetry. Pressuremeter testing or installation of driven piles has been modelled as an undrained expansion of a cylindrical cavity. Stresses, pore water pressures, and deformations are found by assuming that the clay behaves like normally consolidated modified Cam clay. Closed-form solutions are obtained which allow the determination of the principal effective stresses and the strains around the cavity. The analysis which indicates that the intermediate principal stress at critical state is not equal to the mean of the other two principal stresses, except when the clay is initially isotropically consolidated, also permits finding the limit expansion and excess pore water pressures by means of the Almansi finite strain approach. Results are compared with published data which were determined using finite element and finite difference methods.

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.594
Threshold uncertainty score0.887

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.197 · 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

Citations29
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeomechanics and EngineeringSame topicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil MechanicsFrench-language works237,207