MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2129014915 · doi:10.1139/t10-086

Finite element modelling of pullout testing on a soil nail in a pullout box under different overburden and grouting pressures

2011· article· en· W2129014915 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Wan‐Huan Zhou, Jian‐Hua Yin, Cheng-Yu Hong

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil Stabilization
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersHong Kong GovernmentUniversidade de Macau
KeywordsSoil nailingGeotechnical engineeringOverburdenFinite element methodStress (linguistics)EngineeringGeologyStructural engineeringRetaining wall

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, a three-dimensional (3D) finite element (FE) model is developed to simulate the pullout behaviour of a soil nail in a soil-nail pullout box under different overburden and grouting pressures. The FE model simulates all the procedures of a pullout test on a grouted soil nail in a compacted and saturated completely decomposed granite (CDG) soil. The stress–strain behaviour of the CDG soil is described by a modified Drucker–Prager/Cap model, while that of the soil–nail interface is represented by the Coulomb friction model. Triaxial experiment data are used to calibrate the soil parameters in the soil constitutive model. The interface parameters are determined from back-analysis with the laboratory soil-nail pullout data. The soil stress variations surrounding the soil nail during drilling, grouting, saturation, and pullout are all well simulated by the FE modelling and compared with available test data. The comparisons between the modelling and experimental data have shown that the established FE can well simulate the pullout behaviour of a soil nail in a soil mass. Based on this, the verified FE model has the potential to simulate the performance of a soil nail in a field soil slope.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.193
Teacher spread0.156 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations74
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Geotechnical JournalSame topicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil StabilizationFrench-language works237,207