MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Bearing capacity of shallow foundations in saturated and unsaturated sands from SPT–CPT correlations

2014· article· en· W2061795430 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Fathi M.O. Mohamed, Sai K. Vanapalli

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Geotechnical Engineering · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil Mechanics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMinistère de l'Education Nationale, de l'Enseignement Superieur et de la RechercheMinistry of Higher Education and Scientific Research
KeywordsBearing capacityGeotechnical engineeringSuctionSoil waterPenetration testGeologyShallow foundationEnvironmental scienceSoil scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The in situ bearing capacity of sandy soils is determined or estimated using plate load tests (PLTs), cone penetration tests (CPTs), or standard penetration tests (SPTs). The contribution of matric suction toward the bearing capacity of unsaturated sands is, however, not estimated from these tests. In this paper, SPTs and PLTs were conducted in situ on sandy soil in Ottawa, Canada under saturated and unsaturated conditions to demonstrate the contribution of matric suction on the bearing capacity results. In addition, relationships are proposed to estimate the bearing capacity of sands under both saturated and unsaturated conditions from the SPTs results. Comparisons are provided between the measured and estimated bearing capacity values for three different sands from the literature using the proposed relationships. The results of the study suggest that the proposed relationships can be used in the estimation of the bearing capacity of both saturated and unsaturated sands.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.138
Threshold uncertainty score0.275

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.203
Teacher spread0.195 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations10
Published2014
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Geotechnical EngineeringSame topicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil MechanicsFrench-language works237,207