Dilatant stresses at the interface of granular fills and geogrid strip reinforcements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Design guidelines for geosynthetic-reinforced soil walls recommend the use of densely compacted granular soils as select fills. The prevailing construction practices employ two reinforcement layouts. In one, geosynthetics are laid out continuously throughout the length of reinforced area (sheet reinforcement): this layout is usually associated with wrap-around and modular block-type facing units. In the other, geosynthetics are laid out discretely (strip reinforcement): this is usually associated with panel-type facing units. These two reinforcement layouts interact differently with densely compacted granular fills, which are inherently dilatant. Sheet reinforcement corresponds to a free dilatancy condition whereas strip reinforcement corresponds to a restrained dilatancy condition. The effect of restrained dilatancy results in an increase in normal stresses or mobilization of dilatant stresses at the soil–reinforcement interface during reinforcement pullout and in turn generates additional localized compressive stresses in the surrounding granular fill. This has a generally positive influence because it enhances the pullout resistance of the reinforcement and also raises the effective stresses, resulting in an increase in the shear strength of the granular fill and thus improving the internal stability of reinforced soil walls. This paper presents an extension to earlier work by Alfaro et al. on the pullout interaction mechanisms of geogrid strip reinforcements. It examines the mobilization of dilatant stresses at the soil–reinforcement interface during reinforcement pullout. The study shows that it is essential to take into account the influence of dilatant stresses in the internal stability analysis of reinforced soil walls that use geogrid strip reinforcements.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".