Consolidation theory for a composite foundation considering radial and vertical flows within the column and the variation of soil permeability within the disturbed soil zone
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To remedy the contradiction between the equal strain assumption and the flow continuity assumption at a soil–column interface, the traditional flow continuity assumption was abandoned and the radial and vertical flows within a stone column were incorporated to consider the column consolidation and deformation in a coupled fashion. Moreover, two possible variation patterns of the horizontal permeability coefficient of soil within the disturbed soil zone were included, to reflect the detrimental influence on the surrounding soil due to column construction. In addition, a linearly changed total vertical stress along the column depth was assumed, to achieve a more realistic stress distribution in practice. By considering the above mentioned characteristics, the governing equations for this type of consolidation problem were developed. The solutions for the governing equations were subsequently derived by using a new initial condition obtained from the equilibrium condition and equal strain assumption. On the basis of this, the average degree of consolidation of the composite foundation was obtained and discussed. Finally, a parametric study was performed and an application example was introduced to help engineers better utilize the present solution when applied to an actual design.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".