Analysis of helical soil-nailed walls under static and seismic conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study investigates the behaviour of helical soil-nailed wall in a dry cohesionless medium under static and seismic conditions. Initially, results from laboratory pullout tests are used to develop a pullout capacity equation, which is subsequently used for stability analysis of helical soil-nailed wall. A detailed parametric study is conducted to evaluate the effect of angle of internal friction of soil, nail inclination, vertical spacing of nails, number of nails, helix size, number of helices, and the face angle on the stability of the soil-nailed wall. Results from the present method are compared and validated with similar existing methods available in the literature. The results suggest that for the given input parameters, the factor of safety (FoS) values from the present method are lower than the pseudo-static and pseudo-dynamic values. Further, the study clearly highlights the significance of input excitation frequency on the FoS of helical soil-nailed walls. In addition, the effects of strain-dependent dynamic properties (shear modulus and damping ratio) on the stability of helical soil-nailed walls are studied using the newly proposed equivalent linear analysis approach. The results computed from the proposed linear and equivalent linear analysis are also compared and discussed in detail.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".