Field testing of rocking foundations in cohesive soil: cyclic performance and footing mechanical response
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents a field test program of a large-scale soil–footing-structure system designed with a rocking foundation in a cohesive soil to examine the behaviour of the system and to provide case histories for possible performance-based seismic design of foundations. The rocking system was subjected to slow cyclic loadings at various drift ratios up to 7%. Twenty-four tests were conducted for foundations with varying initial factors of safety against the bearing failure, loading directions, rotation amplitudes, and embedment. A geotechnical investigation was carried out to determine soil properties before and after the experiments. The system performance indices, such as damping, stiffness, settlement, and re-centering capability, were quantified and compared with the published literature. Field test results showed that the strength and unit weight of soils at footing edges were increased due to rocking, for the present cohesive soil. The rocking moment capacity increased slightly with the increasing soil strength. An empirical equation for the secant stiffness was developed. The rocking system on the cohesive soil exhibited superior performance in terms of small residual settlement and large re-centering capability. Footing’s mechanical response was quantified using strain gauge readings. The footing remained elastic in tension; the transient soil–footing contact areas were estimated with strain gauges, and they agreed very well with the measured or calculated contact areas.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 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".