Three-dimensional behavior of biaxial geogrid in a piled embankment: numerical investigation
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Biaxial geogrid in current research is oversimplified, and the three-dimensional orthotropic nature of the biaxial geogrid has not been fully understood in numerical investigations. A comparative study on three modeling approaches for the biaxial geogrid is presented in this paper, including the isotropic membrane model, the orthotropic membrane model, and the truss element model. It shows that the orthotropic membrane model yields practically identical results of the maximum geogrid tension when compared with the truss element model, whereas the isotropic membrane model tends to yield values that are approximately 33% larger. A parametric study shows that the pile spacing has the strongest influence on the maximum geogrid tension. The comparison of four analytical methods with the orthotropic membrane model shows that the British standard (BS) 8006 (published in 2010) and EBGEO (published in 2011) methods greatly overestimate the geogrid tension, while the method presented by Zhuang et al. (published in 2014) results in closer agreement.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it