Bibliographic record
Abstract
Experimental evidence has shown that most current methods are not able to predict design loads of footings on cohesionless soil with an acceptable degree of accuracy. In the present study, a simple and realistic settlement-based method is proposed to estimate the design load of rigid footings on sand subjected to static vertical loading. The design criterion based on restricting the end-of-construction settlement to 16 mm because of the inherent variability of the real soil deposits is herein adopted. A series of finite-element analyses based on an advanced constitutive model were carried out to study the load–settlement response of footings supported on 14 sandy soils. Routine design charts were developed to predict the net allowable soil pressure of footings on normally consolidated and overconsolidated sands. These charts consider footing shape, embedment depth, grain diameters D 10 and D 60 , particle shape, unit weight (or submerged unit weight for saturated sands), and indirect measurements of the shear strength derived from in situ tests, such as relative density, standard penetration test (SPT) or cone penetration test (CPT). As shown, the proposed charts match well with available experimental data.
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 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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".