MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2111577604 · doi:10.1002/nag.827

Bearing capacity of shallow foundations in transversely isotropic granular media

2009· article· en· W2111577604 on OpenAlexaff
A.R. Azami, S. Pietruszczak, Peijun Guo

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil Mechanics
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransverse isotropyAnisotropyIsotropyBearing capacityGeotechnical engineeringConstitutive equationParametric statisticsGranular materialShallow foundationFoundation (evidence)Shear (geology)GeologyWork (physics)Deformation (meteorology)MechanicsMaterials scienceStructural engineeringEngineeringMathematicsFinite element methodPhysicsComposite materialMechanical engineeringOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The main focus in this work is on the assessment of bearing capacity of a shallow foundation in an inherently anisotropic particulate medium. Both the experimental and numerical investigations are carried out using a crushed limestone with elongated angular‐shaped aggregates. The experimental study involves small‐scale model tests aimed at examining the variation of bearing capacity as a function of the angle of deposition of the material. In addition, the results of a series of triaxial and direct shear tests are presented and later employed to identify the material functions/parameters. The numerical part of this work is associated with the development and implementation of a constitutive framework that describes the mechanical response of transversely isotropic frictional materials. The framework is based on the elastoplasticity and accounts for the effects of strain localization and inherent anisotropy of both the deformation and strength characteristics. The results of numerical simulations are compared withthe experimental data. A parametric study is also carried out aimed at examining the influence of various simplifications in the mathematical framework on its predictive abilities. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.297 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations111
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in GeomechanicsSame topicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil MechanicsFrench-language works237,207