MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1967587931 · doi:10.1139/t01-019

Analytical model of interaction between hexagonal wire mesh and silty sand backfill

2001· article· en· W1967587931 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Dennes T. Bergado, Panich Voottipruex, Atitep Srikongsri, Chairat Teerawattanasuk

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground Structures
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBearing (navigation)Materials scienceWire meshHexagonal crystal systemNeckingDisplacement (psychology)ReinforcementBearing capacityComposite materialGeotechnical engineeringStructural engineeringEngineeringComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The interaction behavior between hexagonal wire mesh and silty sand backfill can be evaluated from pullout tests. The pullout resistance of the hexagonal wire mesh reinforcement consists of two components, namely friction resistance and passive bearing resistance. The friction resistance – relative displacement relationship of a hexagonal wire mesh can be simulated by a linear elastic – perfectly plastic model. The passive bearing resistance of an individual bearing member can be modelled by a hyperbolic function. The friction resistances for galvanized and PVC-coated hexagonal wire mesh were 25 and 21%, respectively, of the total pullout resistance. A new analytical model for predicting the pullout resistance of hexagonal wire mesh reinforcement has been proposed. The proposed solution can estimate the maximum pullout force at different reinforcement levels from observed horizontal movement of a hexagonal wire mesh reinforcement.Key words: hexagonal wire mesh, necking phenomena, bearing resistance, analytical model, pullout box, bearing resistance.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.154
Threshold uncertainty score0.745

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.207 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations14
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Geotechnical JournalSame topicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground StructuresFrench-language works237,207