Facing contribution to seismic response of reduced-scale reinforced soil walls
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The behavior of six reduced-scale reinforced soil walls under base excitation is investigated using physical shaking table tests. The models were tested to isolate the influence of facing geometry, facing mass and facing toe condition on response to simulated seismic loading. The walls were instrumented to measure facing lateral displacement, reinforcement strain, toe reaction loads and accelerations. The model walls were constructed with a structural facing and polymeric geogrid reinforcement layers and subjected to a stepped amplitude sinusoidal base input acceleration. The toe boundary condition and facing panel configuration were found to have a significant effect on model response. For example, the magnitude of the accumulated facing lateral displacement at the top of the vertical wall models and at the same base acceleration magnitude was less for vertical walls with a less massive facing panel regardless of toe boundary condition. For the same boundary condition, a wall with an inclined facing displaced less than the nominal identical vertical wall for the same base excitation level. The horizontally restrained toe in reduced-scale models attracted approximately 40% to 60% of the peak total horizontal earth load during base excitation, demonstrating that a stiff facing column plays an important role in resisting dynamic loads under simulated earthquake loading. Measured footing and reinforcement loads are compared with values predicted using current pseudo-static analysis and design methods for geosynthetic-reinforced soil walls, and the implications of differences in predicted to measured values to current North American design practice are identified.
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".