Application of material point method in modeling soil-geosynthetics interactions-a literature survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The material point method (MPM) has garnered significant attention in recent years owing to its advantages in solving soil–water-structure interaction problems involving large deformations in geotechnical engineering. The MPM combines the benefits of point-based and mesh-based approaches (finite element method) with both Eulerian computational mesh and continuum descriptions of materials. The successful integration of MPM in simulated landslides, internal erosion, and excavation has been frequently reported. However, solving the soil–geosynthetic interaction problem with the MPM has not been explored, although such problems often entail large deformations. The goal of this study is to collate studies on the simulation of geosynthetics and their interactions with soil using MPM. This paper first discusses the basics of MPM and the formation of thin membrane materials using MPM. It also includes limited applications of MPM in simulating soil–geosynthetic interactions. The applications demonstrate that the MPM is particularly effective in resolving large deformation problems associated with geosynthetics, including problems of landfill settlement, reinforced-slope stability, and geocontainer dropping.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".