The earth pressure behind full-height frame integral abutments supporting granular fill
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Compared with conventional bridges, integral bridges have no bearings or joints between the deck and abutments and thus can significantly reduce maintenance requirements and costs over the bridge's lifetime. However, there is uncertainty about the ultimate magnitude of the lateral earth pressure behind such abutments, as they are forced to move with the deck length change caused, for example, by daily and annual variations in the effective bridge temperature. This research investigated the earth pressure that would be expected to occur behind full-height frame integral abutments backfilled by granular materials. Radial strain-controlled cyclic stress path testing has been conducted on coarse sand specimens and a glass ballotini specimen. The results suggest that for integral abutments retaining uniform coarse sand, the lateral earth pressure will experience systematic increases for almost all cyclic strain levels, eventually reaching states of stress close to both active and passive. The mechanism of the buildup of lateral stress is explored, and it appears to be associated with nonspherical granular particle shape. The implications for frame integral abutment design are discussed.Key words: integral abutments, granular, particle shape, earth pressure, stiffness.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".