Effect of sample location on the reliability based design of pad foundations
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Site investigations that aim to sufficiently characterize a soil profile for foundation design, typically consist of a combination of in situ and laboratory tests. The number of tests and/or soil samples is generally determined by the budget and time considerations placed upon the investigation. Therefore, it is necessary to plan the locations of such tests to provide the most suitable information for use in design. This is considered the sampling strategy. However, the spatial variability of soil properties increases the complexity of this exercise. Results presented in this paper identify the errors associated with using soil properties from a single sample location on a pad foundation designed for settlement. Sample locations are distributed around the site to identify the most appropriate sample location and the relative benefits of taking soil samples closer to the center of the proposed footing. The variability of the underlying soil profile is also shown to a have a significant effect on the errors due to sampling location. Such effects have been shown in terms of the statistical properties of the soil profile. The performance of several common settlement relationships to design a foundation based on the results of a single sample location have also been examined.
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.
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 | 0.003 | 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 it