On the effect of subgrade strength on the performance of geogrid-reinforced railway ballast
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents the results of a series of ballast box tests aimed at investigating the effectiveness of geogrid reinforcement in reducing track settlement in a 300mm-thick layer of railroad ballast supported by three different artificial subgrades. In each experiment, the ballast layer supports a model tie subjected to cyclic compressive loading applied at a frequency of 0.8Hz with stress extrema at the tie-ballast interface of 57kPa and 400kPa for a total of 40,000 cycles. The three artificial subgrades considered in this study have CBR readings of 25, 13, and 5. For each subgrade, four tests are performed whereby one corresponds to an unreinforced condition (i.e., no geogrid) and three are reinforced with a single geogrid placed at either 150mm, 200mm, and 250mm below the bottom of the tie. The results indicate that geogrids exhibit a superior ability to minimize the tie’s settlement when the ballast layer is supported by a weak subgrade. The experiments further allude to the fact that the influence of the geogrid’s placement depth is exacerbated by the subgrade’s strength. In ballast layers supported by competent subgrades, the geogrid placement depth wields a marginal influence on the resulting tie settlement. However, the geogrid’s location becomes a key factor in ballast beds underlain by soft subgrades, with geogrids placed closer to the bottom of the tie being the most effective at minimizing the tie settlement.
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".