MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3200431238 · doi:10.1139/cgj-2021-0186

New insights into soil arching behaviour in column-supported embankments

2021· article· en· W3200431238 on OpenAlexaffvenue
E. J. Smith, Abdelmalek Bouazza, Louis King, R. Kerry Rowe

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil Stabilization
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersAustralian Government
KeywordsGeotechnical engineeringLeveeSettlement (finance)SubsoilPunchingGeologyFinite element methodPlane stressUltimate failureEngineeringStructural engineeringUltimate tensile strengthMaterials scienceSoil water

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The observation of failure surfaces within column-supported embankments is critical to understanding how the embankment stresses are transferred towards the column heads. In this study, finite element simulations utilising a strain-softening constitutive model, nonlocal regularisation, and the Arbitrary Lagrangian–Eulerian formulation are used to examine these failure surfaces over various embankment geometries. This methodology offers insights into the nature of the failure mechanism, the development of a plane of equal settlement, and the influence of the subsoil settlement profile. Depending on the embankment geometry, the results indicate a punching failure, inverted general bearing failure, or a localised failure develops. The transition between punching and inverted general bearing failure is found to be closely related to the establishment of a plane of equal settlement within the embankment. The height of the plane of equal settlement and the range of failure mechanisms that develop were largely insensitive to the nature of the subsoil settlement profiles simulated. These findings have implications for the practical design of efficient embankments and the effective design of future experimental studies.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.200
Teacher spread0.194 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations15
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Geotechnical Journal→Same topicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil Stabilization→French-language works237,207→