MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403794310 · doi:10.1680/jgein.23.00188

3-Dimensional numerical analysis of geosynthetic double-encased annulus stone columns

2024· article· en· W4403794310 on OpenAlexaff
Mohammed Shakeel Abid, Deendayal Rathod, Sai K. Vanapalli

Bibliographic record

VenueGeosynthetics International · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil Stabilization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeosyntheticsGeotechnical engineeringAnnulus (botany)GeologyMaterials scienceComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A geosynthetic double-encapsulated annulus stone column technique is proposed in this study to overcome limitations associated with conventional stone columns, such as limited lateral load-bearing capacity and potential issues related to aggregate dispersion in soft soils. Geosynthetic double-encapsulated annulus stone columns are consistent with conventional stone columns besides being confined in and around the surrounding soil. The performance of geosynthetic double-encapsulated annulus stone columns is primarily dependent upon their outer-to-inner diameter ratio. For this reason, comprehensive 3-dimensional numerical studies were carried out to evaluate the optimum outer-to-inner diameter ratio of the annulus stone column. The results suggest that the ultimate load-carrying capacity of an annulus stone column increases with an increasing ratio of outer to inner diameter until an optimum value. In addition, the double encapsulation enhances confinement, improving shear stiffness and reducing lateral bulging. However, the load-carrying capacity was substantially reduced beyond the critical outer-to-inner diameter ratio. A simple analytical model extending the theory of thin cylinders is also introduced to estimate the accumulated stresses and strains in the geosynthetic encasement. The proposed model operates within a simplified framework of elastic solutions that facilitate practising engineers to design and optimize geosynthetic encasements for enhanced structural performance.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

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 communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations11
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeosynthetics InternationalSame topicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil StabilizationFrench-language works237,207