Modeling Soil-Facing Interface Interaction With Continuum Element Methodology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Soil-facing mechanical interactions play an important role in the behavior of earth-retaining walls. Generally, numerical analysis of earth-retaining structures requires the use of interface elements between dissimilar component materials to model soil–structure interactions and to capture the transfer of normal and shear stresses through these discontinuities. In finite element method software programs, soil–structure interactions can be modeled using “zero-thickness” interface elements between the soil and structural components. These elements use a strength/stiffness reduction factor that is applied to the soil adjacent to the interface. However, in some numerical codes where the zero-thickness elements (or other similar special interface elements) are not available, the use of continuum elements to model soil–structure interactions is the only option. The continuum element approach allows more control of the interface features (i.e., material strength and stiffness properties), as well as the element sizes and shapes at the interfaces. This article proposes parameter values for zero-thickness elements that will give the same numerical outcomes as those using continuum elements in finite element and finite difference commercial software. The numerical results show good agreement for the computed loads transferred from soil to structure using both methods (i.e., zero-thickness elements and continuum elements at interfaces). Both different interface modeling approaches can give very similar results using equivalent interface property values and demonstrate the influence of choice of numerical mesh size on the numerical outcomes when continuum elements are used at the interfaces.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".