Analytical studies on the geotechnical performance of shell foundations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Shell foundations are economic alternatives to conventional plain foundations where heavy superstructural loads are to be transmitted to weaker soils. The use of a shell is a material-saving technique, and for foundations, only forms that are not labour intensive are adopted. Shell foundations of different geometrical shapes have been extensively investigated on the structural side, at both the elastic and the ultimate stages. However, corresponding studies on their geotechnical performance in terms of bearing capacity and settlement, which are the basic parameters for their geotechnical design, are scarce. Because closed-form solutions are extremely complex, even in the limited cases where they have been attempted, the present investigations have resorted to numerical analyses by the finite element method, using the advanced Numerically Integrated Elements for Systems Analysis package. Three configurations of the shell, conical, spherical, and hyperbolic paraboloidal, have been taken up for these studies. The influence of the coefficient of interface friction (µ), type of soil (c, ϕ, and cϕ), and different loading conditions, involving vertical and horizontal loads and moments, on the bearing capacity and settlement of the shells and their plain counterparts has been studied for the sake of comparison. The results presented reveal the general superiority of shell foundations.Key words: shell foundations, plain foundations, bearing capacity, settlement, finite element analysis, relative performance.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".