Peak punch-through capacity of spudcan in sand with interbedded clay: numerical and analytical modelling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The presence of a thin soft clay layer inside a bed of sand may significantly reduce the bearing capacity of the sand layer, imposing a risk of punch-through failure. In this paper, finite element (FE) simulations are reported using a hardening soil (HS) model for sand. The FE model has been verified against centrifuge tests involving loose and dense sand layers overlying clay soil. The effects of sand stiffness, foundation roughness, sand friction angle, undrained clay strength, clay strength nonhomogeneity, and sand and clay layer geometries on the foundation peak capacities have been studied. Punch-through failure is initiated with an inclined sand plug being sheared and pushed into the underlying soft clay. During punch-through, the clay layer fails due to significant radial squeezing. Existing analytical models do not capture the combined failure mechanism of sand shearing and clay radial squeezing. A new analytical model is developed to estimate the peak punch-through capacity of a spudcan in sand with an interbedded clay layer, showing improved performance over the current industry guidelines.
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".