MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1981390834 · doi:10.1139/t04-084

Influence of groundwater on the bearing capacity of shallow foundations

2005· article· en· W1981390834 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ernesto Ausilio, Enrico Conte

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBearing capacityGeotechnical engineeringShallow foundationWater tableGroundwaterParametric statisticsLimit analysisBearing (navigation)Limit (mathematics)GeologyStructural engineeringMathematicsEngineeringFinite element methodComputer scienceMathematical analysisStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, the kinematic approach of limit analysis is used to analyse the influence of groundwater on the bearing capacity of shallow foundations. Analytical expressions are derived allowing the bearing capacity of strip footings resting on a soil where the water table is at some depth below the footing base to be calculated. Results from these expressions are compared with those obtained using other theoretical solutions available in literature. Moreover, a parametric study is carried out to illustrate the effects on bearing capacity of submergence of the soil below the footing. The importance of these effects is discussed, and remarks are also made on the results provided by some simplified methods that are currently used in practice. Finally, a simple approximation of the theoretical solution derived in this study is suggested for practical purposes.Key words: bearing capacity, limit analysis, groundwater, strip footings.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.194
Teacher spread0.182 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations30
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Geotechnical JournalSame topicGeotechnical Engineering and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207