Influence of transient flooding on steel strip reinforced soil walls
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The paper presents the results of three full-scale tests that were carried out to investigate the influence of transient (cyclic) flooding on the performance of steel strip reinforced soil walls (SSWs). The walls were constructed to a height of 6 m and then flooded and drained to about mid-height in four cycles. The walls were constructed with three different granular soils varying with respect to permeability, fines content and shear strength. Earth pressures and reinforcement loads were recorded at end of construction and at the end of each flooding cycle prior to draining. Hence, for the purposes of analysis, the walls were treated as either in a drained or flooded steady state condition. In-situ steel strip pullout tests were also performed. The wall facings were very permeable and thus prevented unbalanced hydrostatic and seepage forces from developing during drawdown that could increase reinforcement strip loads beyond drained condition values. The effects of soil type on measured loads at the connections and peak tensile loads located within the reinforced soil zone are identified. Measured reinforcement tensile loads at end of construction and at the end of peak flood stages are compared to predictions using different analytical models for the (dry) EOC condition. Similar comparisons are made using measured pullout test results and predictions using different pullout models. Implications for current design practice and wall performance in transient flooding environments are reported.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".