Global Level of Safety and Performance of Geosynthetic Walls: An Historical Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A summary of 20 well-documented geosynthetic wall case histories representing a total of 35 analysis conditions is presented. These case histories cover a wide variety of wall heights, surcharge loading, foundation conditions, facing types and batter, reinforcement types and stiffness, and reinforcement spacing. All of the production walls, including some that have been in service for 25 years, have performed well with low reinforcement strains and minimal deflections. Some of the walls were research structures that, although purposely underdesigned, could not be taken to failure, demonstrating that the internal stability design of geosynthetic walls in North America is conservative. Each of the walls was characterized globally with respect to internal level of safety, or resistance to demand ratio. Even when using nonconservative estimates of soil property values and perfect matching of the reinforcement strength to demand, the Simplified Method resulted in approximately 1.5 to 4 times as much geosynthetic reinforcement as that needed to achieve acceptable performance based on actual long-term performance of many of the wall case histories. Based on the analyses presented here, there is a need to re-evaluate the current North American approach to design of geosynthetic walls against internal reinforcement instability.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".