Analytical and numerical modeling of pullout capacity and interaction between hexagonal wire mesh and silty sand backfill under an in-soil pullout test
Bibliographic record
Abstract
During the pullout test, the pullout clamping system was modified and installed inside the pullout box with confinement from the fill material, hereinafter called the in-soil pullout test, which significantly reduced the necking phenomenon and the displacements mobilized during the pullout test. Subsequently, an analytical model was developed to predict the in-soil pullout resistance. In addition, a numerical modeling analysis, under the three-dimensional stress field conditions using the FLAC 3D (fast Lagrangian analysis continua) program, was carried out to simulate the behavior of in-soil pullout tests. The laboratory in-soil pullout test results were then compared with the corresponding data obtained from the analytical and numerical modeling methods. The in-soil pullout resistance was greater than the corresponding result from previous pullout tests wherein the clamping system was conventionally installed outside the pullout box. The predicted pullout resistance results from FLAC 3D agreed reasonably with the results from laboratory tests and with the results from the analytical modeling. The interaction coefficients, R, applied in the finite difference modeling of in-soil pullout tests were 0.90 and 0.65 for zinc-coated and polyvinyl chloride (PVC) coated hexagonal wire meshes, respectively. The predicted and measured pullout resistance of zinc-coated hexagonal wire mesh is approximately 20% greater than that of PVC-coated hexagonal wire mesh at the same applied normal pressure, because of the higher stiffness, EA, and higher shear stiffness, k s , of the zinc-coated mesh.Key words: hexagonal wire mesh, in-soil pullout test, pullout resistance, analytical modeling, numerical modeling.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".