Static and seismic numerical modeling of geosynthetic-reinforced soil segmental bridge abutments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents numerical modeling verification of a block-faced geogrid-reinforced soil bridge abutment (‘segmental bridge abutment’), subjected to construction-induced loads and seismic loads. The static response of the well-instrumented Founders/Meadow segmental bridge abutment, near Denver, USA, during different stages of construction and in-service behavior, and also the static/seismic response of a carefully instrumented reduced-scale reinforced soil-retaining wall tested on a shaking table at the Royal Military College of Canada (RMC), have been used for numerical modeling verification purposes. A 2-D, explicit dynamic finite difference program was used to perform the analyses, with user-defined static/seismic constitutive models. The comparisons between the predicted results from the numerical models and the measured physical results from instrumented prototypes were judged to show good agreement for vertical and horizontal displacements, reinforcement forces, and vertical/horizontal soil pressures. The lessons learned to model the physical structures were used to investigate the seismic response of the Founders/Meadow segmental bridge abutment.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".