Mapping soil nail loads using Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) simplified models and artificial neural network technique
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.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".