Numerical investigation on the interaction effect of back-to-back MSE walls with different facing conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The behavior of back-to-back mechanical stabilized earth (MSE) walls is significantly influenced by the geometry, especially the horizontal distance between the back of the reinforced soil zone of the two MSE walls. In the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) design guidelines, two cases are considered based on the horizontal distance. However, no justification is provided for this assumption. Therefore, research is needed to investigate the interaction effect of back-to-back MSE walls with different horizontal distances. In addition, the assumption does not provide a clear provision regarding facing conditions. This paper presents a numerical investigation of the interaction effect of the static behavior of back-to-back MSE walls with different facing conditions. A parametric study is conducted to investigate the effect of horizontal distance, soil friction angles, and wall heights on the lateral soil thrust and required tensile strength. Results show that the maximum facing displacement, lateral soil thrust, and required reinforcement tensile force of the back-to-back MSE walls with different facing conditions generally increase nonlinearly with increasing horizontal distance up to a certain critical value. Design recommendations that account for the interaction effect between the back-to-back MSE walls with different facing conditions on external stability and internal stability are provided.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".