Seismic behaviour of U-shaped retaining walls in non-liquefiable and liquefiable soils
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper investigates the seismic performance of U-shaped retaining walls under seismic loading in liquefiable and non-liquefiable soils. Two-dimensional nonlinear finite element models are developed in PLAXIS 2D software. The behaviour of the dry sand soil in the model is simulated using the Hardening Soil Model with Small Stiffness (HSsmall) material model, which can represent the nonlinear behaviour and increased stiffness at small strains of soils and is validated against experimental data. Meanwhile, the UBC3D-PLM material model simulates the liquefiable sand behaviour under seismic loading. The numerical model is employed to investigate the effect of relevant design parameters on the retaining wall seismic response. The effects of wall flexibility, soil strength, stiffness, earthquake frequency content, and peak ground acceleration on the seismic response of the U-shaped retaining wall and both liquefiable and non-liquefiable sandy soils are investigated. Key findings indicate that wall flexibility and soil conditions strongly influence seismic wall deflections and earth pressures, with liquefiable soils showing more notable changes in seismic lateral pressures. Additionally, low-frequency seismic motions significantly impact seismic pressures, mainly through variations in energy dissipation.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".