Evaluation of the accuracy of design methods for geosynthetic-reinforced piled embankments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Geosynthetic-reinforced piled embankments have been increasingly used as a solution to stabilize embankments on soft subgrades. Analytical methods have been commonly used in routine designs of such works and significant deviations between results can occur depending on the method considered. This paper investigates the accuracy of different analytical methods by comparing their predictions with results of large-scale tests. A section of piled embankment consisting of an instrumented fill layer subjected to varying values of surface surcharge was simulated in the laboratory. Four different reinforcement types were tested. Results of the tests are presented and discussed, and statistical analyses were carried out to assess the accuracy of each method with regard to pile efficacy, maximum fill settlement, and reinforcement strain. Results show that the identification of the most accurate and precise method depends on the statistical criterion used. However, in general, the methods based on the concentric arches theory, the modified British method (BS8006), and the German method (EBGEO) were the ones that showed the best predictive capability.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| 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".