Bibliographic record
Abstract
Conventional ultimate limit state (ULS) shallow foundation design is typically based on a simplified analysis that fails to consider the possible existence of a combined structural and geotechnical failure, which is shown here to significantly affect the limit load. Neglecting this occurrence may lead to unsafe design, whereas a full analysis can be beneficial for the dimensioning. With the emphasis on separate serviceability limit state and ULS design in modern design codes such as Eurocode 7 (EN 1997-1, 2004 edition), this paper explores unsafe loading scenarios and the benefits to be gained from a rigorous ULS design based on combined failure. For the sake of simplicity, a long foundation slab subjected to three different loading conditions is analysed using elastic, elasto-plastic, and rigid-plastic methods, and the results compared for a range of foundation strengths and stiffnesses. It is found that the limit load may be significantly influenced by plastic hinges in the structure and for each load condition it is possible to derive a curve relating ultimate load to plastic bending moment representing the ultimate limit state of the foundation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".