Retaining walls damaged in the Chi-Chi earthquake
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper investigates the failure of three gravity walls due to the 1999 Chi-Chi earthquake. Characteristics of the damaged walls were carefully recorded and backfill materials behind the damaged walls were collected and tested in the laboratory. Both the simplified analysis based on the MononobeOkabe method and the simplified dynamic analysis based on the RichardsElms method were adopted. For the first case, the sliding of concrete wall blocks along the construction joint was observed. It was found that, during the earthquake, the frictional resistance at the untreated construction joint was not sufficient to resist the dynamic lateral thrust. For the second case, the retaining wall settled significantly and tilted about its toe. Seismic analysis of the wall indicated that, under the same horizontal acceleration, the factor of safety against bearing capacity failure was lower than that against overturning and sliding. A stability check against bearing capacity failure for the retaining wall should never be neglected. For the third case, the retaining wall built on top of the Che-Lung-Pu fault was severely damaged by the fault rupture. During the earthquake, the vertical displacement of the hanging wall uplifted the backfill, causing the wall to overturn. Horizontal displacement of the hanging wall caused the wall to slide and the soil in front of the toe to heave.Key words: analysis, bearing capacity, case study, earthquake, failure, retaining wall.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".