MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2202971058 · doi:10.1680/jgeot.15.p.041

Stability of multi-anchor soil walls after loss of toe support

2015· article· en· W2202971058 on OpenAlexaff
Richard J. Bathurst, Yoshihisa MIYATA, Takeharu Konami, Hiroaki Miyatake

Bibliographic record

VenueGéotechnique · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil Stabilization
Canadian institutionsRoyal Military College of Canada
FundersMinistry of Defense- Japan
KeywordsFoundation (evidence)ReinforcementGeotechnical engineeringStructural engineeringEngineeringBearing capacityUltimate tensile strengthMechanically stabilized earthRetaining wallLoad bearingRodMaterials scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper reports the results of a novel experiment in which two nominally identical full-scale steel multi-anchor reinforced soil walls were taken to foundation failure by progressive loss of footing support. The 4-m high walls varied only with respect to reinforcement anchor lengths. The data show that facing displacements at end of construction and at time of foundation failure below the footing were greater for the wall with the shorter reinforcement lengths. Reinforcement loads at end of construction were best estimated using a working stress model proposed by the authors rather than current methods used in Japan and the UK. However, after significant loss of footing support, the Japanese Public Works Research Centre method gave more accurate and safer load predictions. Regardless, both the anchor rods and anchor plates had abundant reserve capacity to provide large margins of safety against internal tensile rupture and pullout modes of failure even after large foundation displacements.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.649
Threshold uncertainty score0.585

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.208 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations6
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGéotechniqueSame topicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil StabilizationFrench-language works237,207