Three-dimensional behavior of biaxial geogrid in a piled embankment: numerical investigation
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".