Centrifuge and analytical modeling of counterweight retaining walls under translation mode
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Counterweight retaining walls (CRWs) are a variant of gravity-retaining walls that feature a pressure relief platform (RP) on the backfill side to reduce total earth pressure, offering a cost-effective option compared to traditional forms. However, the intricate interactions between CRWs and backfill, coupled with the lack of clear design guidelines, have restricted their use. This study examines the behavior of CRWs in translation mode using three different centrifuge model tests, each with varying fill heights. Observations show a slightly concave slip surface through the wall heel and a nearly planar slip surface extending from the edge of the RP to the back of the wall in an active limit state. Backfill movement can be classified into translation, sliding, and stable zones. Earth pressure distribution on the upper wall follows a trapezoidal pattern, whereas the pressure on the lower wall exhibits a triangular distribution. Earth pressure on the RP is approximately linear, peaking near the RP’s edge. Introducing a friction angle mobilization factor for the potential first slip surface improves accuracy in calculating earth pressure. The tests were replicated to validate the analytical model for earth pressure calculations, using the adaptive finite-element limit analysis method.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".