Performance of a reinforced embankment on a sensitive Champlain clay deposit
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An existing elastoviscoplastic constitutive model is modified using concepts of the state-dependent fluidity parameters and the damage law, to incorporate the effect of soil structure and its destructuration. The model is employed to simulate the performance of a well-documented case study of the reinforced test embankment constructed over a sensitive Champlain clay deposit at Saint Alban, Quebec. The finite element calculations, using both the original (nonstructured) and modified (structured) elastoviscoplastic soil models, are compared with the observed field data from a test embankment brought to failure. The results from the structured elastoviscoplastic soil model show better agreements with the field data when compared with those analyzed using the nonstructured elastoviscoplastic soil model. The modified model captures many features of the reinforced embankment behaviour, such as vertical settlement, excess pore-water pressure responses, and reinforcement force. However, they also reveal the fact that another important characteristic of the natural clay deposit — anisotropy — needs to be considered to provide an adequate prediction of horizontal deformations. The role of geosynthetic reinforcement and its viscosity on short-term responses of the reinforced embankment examined in this study is also discussed
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".