Short-Term Strain and Deformation Behavior of Geosynthetic Walls at Working Stress Conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The paper reviews geosynthetic reinforcement strain measurement techniques that have been reported in a database of well-documented case studies and more recent full-scale laboratory test walls. Interpretation of strain measurements, accuracy of readings, and advantages and disadvantages of different techniques are discussed. In general, properly calibrated strain gauges have proven useful to estimate reinforcement strains at low strain levels (0.02 to 2%). Extensometers are shown to be accurate at strains greater than 2% and to have marginal reliability at strains between 0.5 and 2%. A strategy to improve confidence with interpretation of strain readings is to use strain gauges and extensometers in the field and to adjust strain gauge calibration factors based on in situ measurements from both devices. Corrected reinforcement strains can be used together with appropriately selected reinforcement stiffness values to estimate reinforcement loads. Estimated loads can then be compared to predicted values using current and proposed design methods for the internal stability of geosynthetic-reinforced soil walls.
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 | 0.000 | 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".