MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Numerical Analysis of an Instrumented Steel-Reinforced Soil Wall

2014· article· en· W2004765786 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Geomechanics · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil Stabilization
Canadian institutionsRoyal Military College of Canada
FundersUniversitat Politècnica de Catalunya
KeywordsFinite element methodStructural engineeringGeotechnical engineeringHardening (computing)Constitutive equationNumerical analysisGeologyBoundary value problemEngineeringMathematicsMaterials scienceComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The paper describes the results and lessons learned using a FEM model to simulate quantitative performance features of the Minnow Creek steel-strip reinforced soil wall structure located in the United States. The Minnow Creek Wall structure was constructed and instrumented in 1999. It is a unique case study because of the comprehensive measurements that were taken to record a wide range of wall performance features. Two different constitutive models for the soil were used (a linear-elastic Mohr-Coulomb model and hardening soil model with a Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion), and numerical outcomes were compared with physical measurements. The numerical results were shown to be sensitive to boundary conditions assumed at the toe of the wall. The generally encouraging agreement between physical and numerically predicted results gives confidence that commercial FEM software packages can be useful for the analysis and design of these types of structures, provided that care is taken in the selection of input parameters.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.419
Threshold uncertainty score0.390

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.005
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.206 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it