Design and Construction of a High Soil-Reinforced Segmental Retaining Wall Using Cohesive Backfill
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The GlenEagles SRW wall is a 500 m long reinforced-earth structure, with a maximum height of 10.5 m and an average height of 7.5 m. Preliminary design was in strict accordance with conventional design principles (i.e., NCMA guidelines). The preliminary design was deemed overly expensive, and hence a literature review was conducted to identify research on design innovations that could be implemented to reduce the cost. It was found that the knowledge of the mechanics of reinforced-earth SRW behaviour has advanced significantly since the NCMA guidelines were formulated, and that the conventional design methods as presented in the NCMA and FHWA Design Manuals are in some areas overly conservative. The objective of this paper is to identify certain design guidelines that can be safely relaxed, leading to a more economical design. The paper describes the early design of the wall, the design innovations, and the construction of the wall. It also discusses various issues encountered before, during and after construction that had an important impact on quality and cost.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".