Load-transfer platform behaviour in embankments supported on semi-rigid columns: implications of the ground reaction curve
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Post-construction data from an instrumented geosynthetic reinforced column supported embankment (GRCSE) on drilled displacement columns in Melbourne, Australia, show the time-dependent development of arching over the 2 year monitoring period and a strong relationship between the development of arching stresses and subsoil settlement. A ground reaction curve is adopted to describe the development of arching stresses and good agreement is found for the period observed thus far. Predictions of arching stresses and load-transfer platform behaviour are presented for the remaining design life. Four phases of arching stress development (initial, maximum, load-recovery, and creep strain phases) are shown to describe the time-dependent, and subsoil-dependent, development of arching stresses that can be expected to occur in many field embankments. Of the four phases, the load-recovery phase is the most important with respect to load-transfer platform design, as it predicts the breakdown of arching stresses in the long term due to increasing subsoil settlement. This has important implications in assessing the appropriate design stress for the geosynthetic reinforcement layers, but also the deformation of the load-transfer platform in the long term.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".