MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2124466686 · doi:10.1139/t01-091

A simplified nonlinear settlement prediction model for foundations on sand

2002· article· en· W2124466686 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Barry Lehane, Martin Fahey

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil Mechanics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSettlement (finance)Geotechnical engineeringFoundation (evidence)StiffnessNonlinear systemGeologyFinite element methodCompression (physics)Stress (linguistics)Shallow foundationSoil mechanicsBearing capacityStructural engineeringMathematicsEngineeringSoil waterMaterials scienceSoil scienceComputer scienceLawPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents a simple method for predicting the settlement of spread foundations on sand operating under typical working loads. The method accounts for the well known effects on soil stiffness of strain, stress level, and density dependence, but adopts the simplifying assumption that the stress distribution beneath a loaded foundation can be obtained from Boussinesq's equations for an elastic half space. Despite this simplification, the method is shown to predict foundation responses that closely match those computed using more sophisticated finite element (FE) analyses and those measured in laboratory footing tests, where the stiffness characteristics in triaxial compression were well defined. The method is also seen to predict general variations of foundation settlement with bearing pressure, foundation width, and degree of preloading that are entirely consistent with empirically observed trends. It is concluded that satisfactory settlement predictions for shallow foundations on cohesionless soil may be obtained using Boussinesq's equations if the soil's vertical stiffness characteristics, as inferred from triaxial compression data, can be specified with some degree of precision.Key words: stiffness, settlement, cohesionless soil.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.990
Threshold uncertainty score0.722

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.193 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations24
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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