MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2107563804 · doi:10.1139/t00-050

Characterization of a smear zone around vertical drains by large-scale laboratory tests

2000· article· en· W2107563804 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
J.S. Sharma, Daping Xiao

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGrouting, Rheology, and Soil Mechanics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOedometer testGeotechnical engineeringConsolidation (business)Permeability (electromagnetism)GeologyPore water pressureMandrelMaterials scienceComposite materialSoil waterSoil science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Installation of prefabricated vertical drains using a mandrel causes disturbance of clay surrounding the drain, resulting in a "smear" zone of reduced permeability. In this paper, an attempt is made to characterize the smear zone using large-scale laboratory model tests. Two tests, simulating the cases of "no smear" and "with smear," were conducted. Excess pore-water pressures were monitored at seven different locations along the radial direction. In addition, undisturbed samples were collected at various locations in the clay layer for conducting oedometer tests. The distribution of excess pore pressure due to drain installation gave a clear indication of the extent of the smear zone. The effect of reconsolidation on the properties of clay was found to be much greater than that of the remoulding of the clay. The extent of the smear zone was also confirmed from the change in permeability of the clay layer in the smear zone obtained from oedometer tests. The radius of the smear zone is about four times that of the mandrel, and the horizontal permeability of the clay layer in the smear zone is approximately 1.3 times smaller than that in the intact zone.Key words: consolidation, permeability, smear zone, soft clay, vertical drains.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.864
Threshold uncertainty score0.657

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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.186
Teacher spread0.182 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations131
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Geotechnical JournalSame topicGrouting, Rheology, and Soil MechanicsFrench-language works237,207