Improved understanding of geogrid response to pullout loading: insights from three-dimensional finite-element analysis
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
Soil reinforcement has rapidly become one of the most common soil improvement techniques used in geotechnical engineering. Understanding the behavior of a geogrid under pullout loading is essential for the analysis and design of reinforced soil systems. The overall behavior of reinforced soils is generally dependent on the properties of the geogrid material, the backfill soil, and the interface condition. Modeling the three-dimensional aspects of soil–geogrid interaction under pullout loading condition is numerically challenging and requires special consideration of the different modes of resistance that contribute to the pullout capacity of the geogrid reinforcement. This study describes the results of a three-dimensional finite-element analysis that has been developed to investigate the behavior of a biaxial geogrid embedded in granular backfill material and subjected to pullout loading. The modeling approach considers the noncontinuous nature of the geogrid geometry and the elastoplastic response of the geogrid material. Model validation is performed by simulating laboratory-size pullout test and comparing the experimental data with the analytical as well as numerically calculated results. The detailed behavior of the geogrid and the surrounding backfill is investigated using the proposed numerical approach. Conclusions are made to highlight the suitability of this technique for analyzing similar soil–structure interaction problems.
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 | 0.001 | 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 it