Drained solution for cylindrical cavity expansion in modified Cam clay soil under constant vertical stress
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cavity expansion is a fundamental theoretical problem in geomechanics. For the cylindrical cavity expansion problem, derivations of solutions are usually based on the assumption that the soil is subject to the plane strain condition. However, this is untrue for cavity expansion in pressuremeter tests. This study first derived the equilibrium equation for cylindrical cavity expansion under the constant vertical stress condition. Then, the equilibrium equation was solved for modified Cam clay soils with different overconsolidation ratios (OCRs). The solutions were compared with the responses in the same soils under the plane strain condition. It was found that the ratio of the limiting cavity pressure in the latter to that in the former ranged from 1.31 to 2.76 and increased with an increase in the OCR. Under the constant vertical stress condition, significant heaving occurred in the vicinity of the cavity, and volumetric strain evolved from contraction to dilation as the OCR increased. Significant differences were noted in the stress paths of the two different loading conditions. These results indicate that the assumption of the plane strain condition will lead to overestimation of the limiting cavity pressure and inaccurate prediction of the stress path in the pressuremeter test, especially for heavily overconsolidated soils.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.004 | 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".