Numerical Analysis of Earthquake Load Mitigation on Rigid Retaining Walls Using EPS Geofoam
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The mitigation of seismic-induced dynamic earth forces by placing a vertical layer of expanded polystyrene (EPS) geofoam buffer between a rigid retaining wall and the backfill soil is a recent geotechnical innovation. In this paper, the influence of an EPS geofoam buffer on the reduction of dynamic wall forces is numerically studied by simulating the results of three reduced-scale models of rigid walls mounted on a large shaking table. Numerical simulations were carried out using the finite element program ABAQUS. The paper shows that the numerical results capture the trend in earth forces with increasing base acceleration for all three models. The quantitative dynamic load-time response from the numerical simulations was also judged to be in good agreement with measured physical test values. The numerical trend of EPS geofoam also is the same as that of measured test data. With the increasing time, the compression of EPS geofoam increases. And softer EPS geofoam produces more compression which takes more vibration energy by its deformation. The numerical results confirm the results of physical tests that demonstrate that EPS geofoam seismic buffers hold great promise to reduce earthquake-induced dynamic loads against rigid retaining wall structures.
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 | 0.001 | 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".