Ultimate seismic bearing capacities and failure mechanisms for strip footings placed adjacent to slopes
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Assessment of the ultimate bearing capacity of foundations adjacent to slopes is complex as it is highly dependent on the slope geometry and soil properties. Seismic loading may impact both the critical failure mechanism and its associated bearing capacity. The existing approaches for analyzing the seismic bearing capacity of footings near slopes typically employ coefficients developed to fit the conventions of Terzaghi’s bearing capacity equation, herein referred to as the “superposition method.” In this study, a rigorous assessment of the seismic bearing capacity is performed using an upper-bound limit state plasticity framework known as discontinuity layout optimization (DLO), which makes few prior assumptions concerning the failure geometry. Results show that soil properties, slope configuration, and pseudostatic seismic loading all influence the realized failure mechanism and associated bearing capacity. The use of bearing capacity coefficients that fit within the conventional superposition method may underestimate limit loads when the underlying soil provides a relative increase in resistance, but may greatly overestimate bearing capacity when the self-weight of the soil is destabilizing in nature. A set of design charts using direct computational methods for a variety of geometric, geotechnical, and seismic conditions is provided.
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.
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 it