Experimental investigation of global backward erosion and suffusion of soils in embankment dams
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many embankment dams constructed with a core of nonplastic or very low plasticity silt–sand–gravel (typically of glacial, fluvioglacial or alluvial origin) have experienced internal erosion. This has often expressed itself with the development of sinkholes or with intermittent episodes of increased leakage, which then reduces. In this investigation 22 soil samples with gradations representing the range of the soils used in embankment dam cores have been tested in the laboratory. All 22 soils tested were shown to be internally unstable with particle movement within the soil after placement. Some soils exhibited global backward erosion (GBE), others suffusion, and some internal instability but with no erosion from the sample, indicating self-filtering. The internal erosion process was very rapid for suffusive soils, typically occurring within minutes of test commencement, and at a gradient of 1. For soils subject to GBE and no-erosion soils, the internal movement of particles continued for weeks and months, and re-activated when the overall gradient was increased. For GBE, the erosion process occurred over a range of gradients. A method for predicting the amount of erosion and the erosion mechanism based on the gradation of the soil has been developed that is related to the ability of the soil to self-filter.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".