Effect of footing width on <i>N<sub>γ</sub></i> and failure envelope of eccentrically and obliquely loaded strip footings on sand
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper thoroughly investigates the bearing capacity of strip footings on sand under combined loading by using a lower-bound limit analysis in conjunction with finite elements and second-order cone programming (SOCP). Two analyses were performed: one using a constant friction angle and the other using a variable friction angle. The analyses with a constant friction angle were used to calibrate the existing results, including the classical solutions commonly used in foundation design practice and other numerical or experimental solutions. The analyses with a variable friction angle allow us to investigate the effect of footing width B on the bearing capacity of strip footings. An iteration computational procedure is employed to account for the dependency of the friction angle on the stress level. According to the numerical results, it is found that the bearing capacity factor Nγ for eccentrically or obliquely loaded strip footings linearly decreases with the increase of B on a log–log scale, where the range 0.3–5 m of footing width was considered in this paper. In addition, it is found that the footing width has a negligible effect on the shape and size of the normalized failure envelopes.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".