Stability of steel reinforced soil walls after footing failure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two nominal identical 4 m high steel strip reinforced soil walls varying only with respect to reinforcement layer length arrangement were constructed and instrumented in an indoor laboratory environment. A novel feature of the tests was a foundation arrangement that allowed for simulated loss of toe support. Both walls performed well at the end of construction (EOC). Predicted unfactored maximum reinforcement tensile loads at the EOC using four different load models were judged to be conservative (safe for design) based on comparison with measured loads for both walls. Reinforcement loads were observed to increase with decreasing toe support, particularly at the base of the walls. A fully developed composite soil failure mechanism propagating from the heel of the foundation bulkhead and behind the reinforcement layers was observed during excavation of the stepped base wall model. There were no visual indications of soil failure within or behind the wall with longer uniform reinforcement lengths. However, predicted EOC loads for this wall were exceeded for most layers after loss of toe support. Implications for the design, analysis and performance of steel strip reinforced soil walls with similar reinforcement arrangements constructed over initially competent soil foundations and then subject to loss of toe support are identified.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".