Behavior of an Atypical Embankment on Soft Soil: Field Observations and Numerical Simulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper compares the behavior of an embankment with nonsymmetric geometry built on soft soil with that predicted numerically using four elastoplastic soil models. Two of these models are based on isotropic conditions (Modified Cam-Clay on its own or in association with Von Mises) and two other are derived from anisotropic conditions (Melanie on its own or conjugated with Mohr Coulomb). The performance of the models, whose parameters are derived from experimental data, is checked against triaxial tests results. For the embankment, the measured and computed displacements and excess pore pressure are compared, with the isotropic models performing best. The maximum horizontal displacements versus settlements, the change in excess pore pressure versus vertical stress, the extent of the yield domain and the contours of the effective vertical and horizontal stress increments are also examined. The numerical results are explained based on the characteristics of the numerical models, namely the size and shape of the yield surface. The embankment, despite its nonsymmetric geometry, exhibits some similarities with typical behavior.
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 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".