Comparison of geosynthetic reinforced soil wall solutions using analytical design methods and numerical modelling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
European design standard (prEN-1997 202x) permits the use of suitably verified numerical models for the design of reinforced soil walls (RSW). The paper first compares three analytical design method outcomes (Coherent Gravity, Simplified, and Stiffness method) available in US (AASHTO 2020) and Canadian (CSA 2019) design codes. Polyester (PET) strap reinforcement arrangements from each method were then simulated using a 2D finite element model (FEM) which considered construction stages and transient compaction conditions. The models for each arrangement were analyzed using different material factors applied to the soil frictional strength. Serviceability limit states (SLS) and ultimate limit states (ULS) were evaluating via horizontal wall deformations, soil shear strains, and maximum reinforcement tensile loads. Numerical results remained within SLS and ULS criteria. The maximum tensile loads from the numerical models were close to, but lower than the predicted loads using the Stiffness Method, which in turn were lower than the loads predicted using the Simplified and Coherent Gravity 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".