Bibliographic record
Abstract
An extensive literature review was conducted to collect and synthesize information on geosynthetic-reinforced soil (GRS) walls that had been monitored for extended periods of time for assessment of their long-term performance characteristics. As a result, seven GRS retaining wall projects were selected. These projects typically had well-documented, longterm reinforcement strain data, wall deformation data, and design information. The walls range from 4.5 m to over 12 m in height and typically include surcharge loads composed of earth fills or traffic loads. Reinforcement materials were polypropylene and polyester geogrids or geotextiles, ranging in short-term strength from 5.8 kN/m to more than 17 kN/m. The facings used on the walls were concrete modular blocks, concrete panels, or wrapped geotextile surfaces. Some of the walls were constructed on poor foundations, whereas others were constructed on competent foundation materials. The environmental conditions vary from freezing temperatures in Ontario, Canada, to temperatures up to 44°C for walls built in the state of Arizona. The measured performance data for the seven GRS walls were evaluated in detail. The results indicate that creep deformation was very small when well-compacted granular backfill was employed and that current design methods are overly conservative regarding long-term creep of geosynthetic reinforcement in the GRS walls. A rational procedure for predicting long-term creep deformation of GRS walls is proposed that involves conducting a soil-geosynthetic interactive performance test with on-site soil and the use of a long-term creep equation developed on the basis of the behavior of the seven GRS walls.
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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| 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 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".