Deterministic and random FEM analysis of full-scale unreinforced and reinforced embankments
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents the results of numerical simulations of one physical full-scale unreinforced embankment and two reinforced embankments taken to failure using a strip footing. The embankments were 3.4 m in height and were constructed with the same slope using the same sand backfill. One reinforced embankment was constructed with a relatively weak and extensible geogrid material and the other with a relatively stronger and stiffer geogrid product. Deterministic finite element method (FEM) and random finite element method (RFEM) analyses were carried out and the results compared to observed performance. Analyses were performed assuming vertical spatial variability in soil strength at a scale of fluctuation matching the compaction lift thickness of the physical tests and treating the soil as a random (homogeneous) material. Both deterministic and probabilistic analyses showed good agreement with the measured bearing capacity of the footing in each full-scale test. However, the assumption of vertically anisotropic spatial variability in soil strength was shown to achieve a better match with the observed failure mechanism in each of the embankments.
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.
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 it