Tensile Strength of Cement-Treated Champlain Sea Clay: An Experimental and Numerical Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<div>The deep soil mixing method is becoming increasingly popular in the treatment of problematic soils in Canada. Champlain Sea clay, found throughout the St. Laurence River basin from Ontario to Quebec, is well-known for its high compressibility and a sudden loss of its shear strength due to disturbance. The tensile strength of a stabilized soil is an important design parameter for structures, such as embankments and retaining walls. Currently, there is no study available on the tensile strength of cement-treated Champlain Sea clay. This study is to address this knowledge gap by using indirect tensile strength testing approaches, such as the Brazilian tensile test and unconfined penetration test. General use cement was selected for mixing with clay. The tensile strength results of cement-treated clay were compared and correlated with its unconfined compressive</div><div>strength to establish a relationship. According to this study, the tensile strength of cement-treated Champlain Sea clay was approximately 6 % of its unconfined compressive strength. The Brazilian tensile strength is recommended for future studies over the unconfined penetration test due to its reliability and consistency in the test results. A numerical simulation using Abaqus CAE was also performed on the behavior of a Brazilian tensile testing sample during loading. A fair agreement was observed between experimental and numerical simulation results up to crack initialization</div>
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".