Numerical verification of the Concentric Arches model for geosynthetic-reinforced pile-supported embankments: applicability and limitations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, a series of three-dimensional finite element simulations of a geosynthetic-reinforced pile-supported embankment design was conducted. The effects of subsoil stiffness, friction and dilation angles of the fill, fill height, pile spacing, surcharge load on the embankment, and anisotropic tensile stiffness of the geosynthetic reinforcement (GR), ground reaction curve, and interfacial responses between the fill material and GR were scrutinized. Numerical results showed how transfer of the vertical load towards the piles (load part A) and the related soil arches change with subsoil stiffness, geometric parameters, and vertical pressure on the embankment. Furthermore, the vertical load transferred through the GR (load part B) is reduced significantly with increasing subsoil stiffness, while the load part carried by the subsoil (load part C) increases. The numerical results showed that the vertical stress distribution on the GR changes from an inverse-triangular shape for low subsoil stiffness to a uniform shape for high subsoil stiffness. This matches perfectly with the Concentric Arches model. For low subsoil stiffness, the tensile strains of the GR are concentrated at the corner of a square pile cap.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".