Behaviour of Strip Footing in the Vicinity of Non-Yielding Wall
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The paper presents two-1/3 scale nonyielding wall-strip footing models that were constructed and tested at the sand box test facility at the American University of Sharjah (AUS).The objective of the testing program is to quantify the responses of both strip footing and nonyielding wall constructed closer to each other.To achieve this objective, different design construction parameters have been considered including: (1) the strip footing width (B), (2) footing distance from non-yielding wall back (a), and, (3) strip footing embedment depth below the backfill surface (Df).Test results indicated that the location of the strip footing relative to the wall is a major factor in dictating the load bearing capacity of the strip footing, and the maximum lateral deflection of the non-yielding wall.Meanwhile, the vertically loaded strip footing imposed substantial vertical and horizontal forces at the wall top and bottom boundaries.The strip footing load bearing capacity increased as the distance from the wall increased, the footing width decreased, and the embedment depth increased.Data collected from the responses of scaled-physical model test were used to recognize deficiencies in current design approaches for similar soil structure interaction problems.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".