Analysis of case study presenting ground anchor load-transfer response in shale stratum
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents the analysis of the instrumentation and monitoring of ground anchors for a landslide stabilization system located at the State Route 82 Bridge, near Brecksville, Summit County, Ohio (SUM 82). The stabilization system consisted of two tieback walls. Site conditions and design aspects are considered; also, the construction sequence is presented. Field performance data were collected during and after construction, representing a total monitoring period of about 340 days. Load transfer was studied based on strain gage measurements along the bonded length of the anchors. Load variation during preproduction and performance tests of the anchors is described and discussed. A numerical procedure is presented to evaluate the anchor load–deformation characteristics based on the t-z approach. Two strain-softening load-transfer functions were used at the interface between the bonded length of the anchors and the rock. The analysis shows that the prediction of the load–displacement curve for each anchor is more influenced by the selected ultimate side frictional resistance along the anchor–rock interface than the shear stiffness of the interface. This study concludes that it is critical that peak and residual load characteristics be included in the load-transfer models for anchors installed in rock.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".