MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2435957978 · doi:10.1139/cgj-2016-0137

Behavior of braced excavation supported by panels of deep mixing columns

2016· article· en· W2435957978 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Razvan Ignat, Sadek Baker, Sven Liedberg, Stefan Larsson

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground Structures
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeotechnical engineeringPileBrittlenessExcavationStructural engineeringGeologyLateral earth pressureMixing (physics)Settlement (finance)Instrumentation (computer programming)EngineeringMaterials scienceComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper describes the instrumentation, execution and performance of two full-scale tests where a braced steel sheet pile wall interacting with rows of overlapping dry deep mixing columns was excavated and then loaded to failure. The purpose of these tests was to provide knowledge of the behavior of deep mixing column rows located in the passive zone and interacting with a retaining structure. Both tests were extensively instrumented on the active as well as on the passive side of the retaining structure. In both conducted tests a stability failure of the retaining structure occurred, resulting in heave at the bottom of the excavation and large settlements of the ground surface behind the sheet pile wall. For a spacing between lime-cement (LC)-panels of 3.0 m, a very brittle failure developed suddenly in the clay between the panels with small deformations prior to failure. In the second test, with a spacing of 1.5 m between LC-panels, the failure developed in the LC-panels as well as in the clay between the panels. Even if a similar failure mechanism developed, measured horizontal displacements, horizontal stresses, and pore pressure response prior to failure differed between the tests.

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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.280
Threshold uncertainty score0.526

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.197
Teacher spread0.190 · 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

Citations23
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Geotechnical JournalSame topicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground StructuresFrench-language works237,207