Analytical and experimental approaches to obtain the ultimate strength of reinforced earth elements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
From the early 1960’s when reinforced earth was introduced by Henri Vidal, much research has been carried out with the aim of estimating the improvement in shear strength of reinforced earth compared to that of unreinforced soil. This paper aims to find the maximum vertical pressure that the soil element can withstand while a lateral pressure is applied to the element. An analytical approach based on the enhanced confining pressure concept as well as some experiments employing triaxial test to determine the ultimate strength of reinforced earth seawalls are proposed. If the soil element is unreinforced, the maximum vertical stress can be easily obtained by multiplying the lateral pressure by the passive pressure coefficient, but for a reinforced element an additional term due to the effects of reinforcement must also be considered. In addition to analytical approach, triaxial tests were performed to examine the behaviour of reinforced and unreinforced sand elements in an undrained fully saturated condition. In conclusion, under low failure pressures (10–20 kPa) the reinforced soil has an internal friction angle higher than that for unreinforced sand, but under higher failure pressures (100 kPa) the internal friction angle of both unreinforced and reinforced sand remains the same.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".