Experimental design, instrumentation and interpretation of reinforced soil wall response using a shaking table
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A series of dynamic shaking table experiments were performed at the Royal Military College of Canada (RMC) to investigate the seismic performance of reduced-scale reinforced soil walls constructed with different toe boundary conditions, facing panel configurations and reinforcement layouts. The models were 1 m high by 1.4 m wide by 2.4 m long and were constructed with a full-height rigid panel facing, a uniform sand backfill and multiple layers of polymeric geogrid reinforcement. The wall toe was constructed to simulate a perfectly hinged toe (i.e. the toe allowed to rotate only) in one series of models and an idealised sliding toe (i.e. the toe allowed to rotate and slide horizontally) in the other series. The model walls were instrumented to measure facing panel and soil backfill lateral displacement, reinforcement strains, horizontal and vertical toe loads, and both facing and backfill acceleration response. All the models were subjected to a horizontal stepped-amplitude sinusoidal base acceleration input. The paper is focused on the experimental design, material properties, instrumentation and the interpretation of results. Selected test results are presented to illustrate typical model response features. Finally, some implications to current seismic design practice are identified with respect to magnitude and distribution of reinforcement-facing connection loads and the influence of a structural facing and restrained toe boundary condition on wall response during base excitation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".