Behavior of an anchored sheet pile quay in soft clay reinforced by various structural types of cemented soil
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this research, the potential benefits of using various structural types of cemented soil, including block-type, column-type, and wall-type, to reinforce the active zone behind a quay wall were investigated by experimental and numerical methods. The response of the quay wall and ground was analysed from aspects of soil movement, quay wall displacement, lateral earth pressure, and bending moment, and a close agreement between the experimental and numerical results was observed. Experimental and numerical results showed that the cemented soil effectively prevented potential deep soil sliding, and then lateral displacement of the quay wall and ground deformation was reduced. Among various structural patterns, the case with the block-type cemented soil exhibited smaller lateral earth pressure on the quay wall, while the case with the wall-type cemented soil more effectively reduced the bending moments and lateral displacements of the quay wall; therefore, wall-type cemented soil seems to be more favourable considering their improved performance under the same load intensities and excavation depth. This research provides a hint and guideline for the preliminary design of cemented soil-stabilised sheet pile quay structures in soft clay based on the lateral load-reduction effect of the varying structural types of the cemented soil.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".