Dual row retaining walls in dry sand: influence of wall stiffness on seismic response
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dual row retaining walls can form efficient port and embankment structures, or even be used as coastal defence against tsunamis. The system of parallel sheet pile walls can have a large lateral capacity within serviceability limit states due to the combined strength and stiffness of the walls and confined soil. Optimising the design by reducing the wall section and ensuring greater utilisation of the soil capacity has economic and environmental benefits but requires a deeper understanding of the dynamic soil–structure interaction. Centrifuge modelling and numerical modelling are used to elucidate the mechanics of two systems with relatively flexible and stiff walls. Considering the fraction of the wall’s plastic moment capacity mobilised alongside the peak deflections illustrates the advantages of using relatively flexible retaining walls in these systems. More fundamentally, the importance of vertical variations of both the stress and strain during the horizontal dynamic loading is shown. The limiting horizontal stresses and phasing of the stress components around the walls are better understood by considering the mobilisation of earth pressure coefficients, reinforcing previous work that recommends a move away from conventionally defined limiting dynamic earth pressure coefficients.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".