MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2347333221

NUMERICAL ANALYSIS OF PERFORMANCE OF GEOGRIDS-REINFORCED RETAINING WALLS BY NONLINEAR FEM

2005· article· en· W2347333221 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jianjun Pei

Bibliographic record

VenueChinese journal of rock mechanics and engineering · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil Stabilization
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRetaining wallFinite element methodStiffnessRigidity (electromagnetism)Structural engineeringDeformation (meteorology)GeogridNumerical analysisGeotechnical engineeringMaterials scienceNonlinear systemEngineeringComposite materialReinforcementMathematics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A numerical nonlinear analysis procedure based on finite element method is developed for the geogrids-reinforced retaining walls.The effects of both backfills and geogrids can be considered in the procedure.A case study for a large-scale test wall reinforced by geogrids,which is well documented by Royal Military College of Canada,is used to verify the reliability of the proposed numerical method.Then a comparative study is conducted for a varied range of parameters involved in the analysis such as deformation and strength properties of backfills and rigidity,length and vertical spacing of geogrids.The influence of these parameters on distribution and variation modes of stresses and deformations of the system are examined based on the computed results.It is shown that the rigidity of geogrids had a considerable effect on the behavior of geogrids-reinforced retaining walls when the backfills are of lower strength and stiffness;and that the geogrids have a limited length when the height of wall is fixed;and that the spacing of geogrids also has an effect on the deformation of the wall face.The performance behavior of geogrids-reinforced retaining wall is further discussed.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.315
Threshold uncertainty score0.650

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.184
Teacher spread0.180 · 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 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

Citations3
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChinese journal of rock mechanics and engineeringSame topicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil StabilizationFrench-language works237,207