MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409799843 · doi:10.11159/icgre25.157

Prediction of Active Earth Pressure in Constrained Backfill Retaining Walls using Support Vector Regression and Traditional Datafit based Non-Linear Regression

2025· article· en· W4409799843 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Shahid Bashir, Abdul Waris Kenue, B. Munwar Basha

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the World Congress on Civil, Structural, and Environmental Engineering · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil Stabilization
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSupport vector machineRegression analysisRegressionLinear regressionLateral earth pressureProper linear modelBayesian multivariate linear regressionComputer scienceMathematicsMachine learningStatisticsGeotechnical engineeringGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Constrained Backfill Retaining Walls (CBRWs) are increasingly utilized in geotechnical engineering, particularly in mountainous regions and densely populated urban areas where space limitations demand innovative design solutions.These walls exhibit unique geometric configurations, leading to complex earth pressure behaviors that deviate significantly from those observed in conventional retaining walls.Accurate prediction of the coefficient of active earth pressure (Ka) is crucial for ensuring the stability and safety of CBRWs.However, traditional methods using data-fitting software, though often yielding high R² values (up to 0.99), may not provide reliable predictions in real-world applications.To address these shortcomings, this study investigates the application of machine learning (ML) techniques, specifically Support Vector Regression (SVR), as an advanced method for predicting Ka in CBRWs.The current investigation models three failure mechanisms involving single, double, and triple rigid blocks, depending on the distance between the rock face and the retaining wall, to generate a dataset of Ka, calculated through in-house MATLAB codes.These computations are both time-consuming and computationally intensive, highlighting the necessity for an efficient predictive model.The SVR model is employed to predict Ka, and its performance is compared against conventional data-fitting approaches.The input parameters for the predictions include -aspect ratio (b/h), internal frictional angle of the soil ( φ ), rock-face angle (η ), retaining wall inclination ( β ), backfill inclination ( ε ), interface friction angle between rock-face and soil ( δ ), and interface friction angle between retaining wall and soil (ψ ).The model effectiveness is evaluated using multiple error metrics.The SVR model achieved a coefficient of determination (R²) value of 97.4%, demonstrating strong predictive capability.In contrast, conventional data-fitting software exhibits limitations in accurately capturing the complex Ka behavior in CBRWs.The findings of this study underscore the potential of SVR to enhance the design and analysis of CBRWs by offering greater accuracy and computational efficiency compared to traditional methods.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.198
Teacher spread0.186 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the World Congress on Civil, Structural, and Environmental EngineeringSame topicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil StabilizationFrench-language works237,207