Numerical study of the influence of foundation compressibility and reinforcement stiffness on the behavior of reinforced soil walls
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Most geosynthetic and metallic reinforced soil walls are designed assuming that the wall foundation is rigid and/or does not influence the magnitude and distribution of reinforcement loads under operational conditions. This assumption may not apply to walls constructed over compliant (compressible) foundations. This paper describes the results of a series of numerical simulations that were carried out on idealized 3·6, 6, and 9 m-high modular block walls seated on foundations having four different compressibility values. The walls were constructed with two reinforcement materials having very different stiffness values but the same tensile strength. The results of simulations show that as foundation stiffness decreases, reinforcement loads increase. However, for the two reinforcement materials in this study, the influence of axial stiffness of the reinforcement had a greater effect on wall performance than the foundation stiffness for walls subjected to operational (working stress) conditions at end of construction.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it