Seismic Behavior of Retaining Walls: A Critical Review of Experimental and Numerical Findings
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For reliable seismic design of earth-retaining structures, it is critical to accurately assess the magnitude and distribution of dynamic earth pressures. Over the years, numerous experimental and numerical studies have sought to clarify the complex soil–structure interactions in backfill–wall systems under seismic loads. This article expands on an earlier review by the authors of analytical and field performance studies addressing the seismic behavior of retaining walls. Despite extensive research, there is still no consensus on a standardized seismic evaluation method or on the necessity of including seismic loads in the design of retaining structures. This review critically examines notable experimental and numerical findings on dynamic lateral earth pressure, highlighting that the current design practices cannot be generally applied to all types of retaining structures. More importantly, these practices often rely on experimental data extrapolated beyond their original applicability.
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.
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) | 0.002 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it