Static and seismic numerical modeling of geosynthetic-reinforced soil segmental bridge abutments
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
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.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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