Mapping soil nail loads using Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) simplified models and artificial neural network technique
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
This study compiles a broad database containing 312 measured maximum soil nail loads under operational conditions. The database is used to re-assess the prediction accuracies of the default Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) nail load model and its modified version previously reported in the literature. Predictions using the default and modified FHWA models are found to be highly dispersive. Moreover, the prediction accuracy is statistically dependent on the magnitudes of the predicted nail load and several model input parameters. The modified FHWA model is then recalibrated by introducing extra empirical terms to account for the influences of wall geometry, nail design configuration, and soil shear strength parameters on the evolvement of nail loads. The recalibrated FHWA model is demonstrated to have much better prediction accuracy compared to the default and modified models. Next, an artificial neural network (ANN) model is developed for mapping soil nail loads, which is shown to be the most advantageous one as it is accurate on average and the dispersion in prediction is low. The abovementioned dependency issue is also not present in the ANN model. The practical value of the ANN model is highlighted by applying it to reliability-based designs of soil nails against internal limit states.
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 | 0.000 | 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