MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2026050223 · doi:10.1139/t06-122

The earth pressure behind full-height frame integral abutments supporting granular fill

2007· article· en· W2026050223 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ming Xu, C.R.I. Clayton, Alan G. Bloodworth

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground Structures
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLateral earth pressureAbutmentGeotechnical engineeringStructural engineeringStiffnessDeckGranular materialMaterials scienceOverburden pressureStress (linguistics)GeologyBridge (graph theory)Engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.867
Threshold uncertainty score0.966

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.201
Teacher spread0.196 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations29
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Geotechnical JournalSame topicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground StructuresFrench-language works237,207