Bibliographic record
Abstract
Application of limit-state analysis, such as limit equilibrium (LE), yields the critical slip surface and its associated minimum safety factor.However, at a limit state, it produces little information about the distribution of local load of an individual reinforcement, including its load at connection to the facing.In this presentation, the Safety Map, generated by LE analysis, is modified so as to attain a prescribed constant Fs at any location within the reinforced soil mass.A modified design framework then is presented enabling one to generate the Tension Map showing the distribution of reinforcement tension, along each layer, at a limit state.This tension map is constrained by a pullout capacity envelope at both the rear and front of each reinforcement layer, providing a robust and consistent LE-based approach towards assessing an optimal selection of reinforcement.It yields the maximum load in each layer, Tmax, its location, the connection load To, possible horizontal face displacement at a limit state, as well as bearing load, eccentricity, and aspects associated with external stability.The approach can consider complex slope geometries and layouts of reinforcement.To illustrate the utility of the Framework, a series of instructive examples are presented including internal stability, consideration of facing, horizontal movement, and bearing capacity.The developed methodology was published in 2016 as FHWA-HIF-17-004, "Limit Equilibrium Design Framework for MSE Structures with Extensible Reinforcement" and was recognized in AASHTO 2020 as an alternative design method for geosynthetic-reinforced walls.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".