Centrifuge model study on settlement of strip footing subject to rising water table in loess
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Owing to man-made activities and natural conditions, the groundwater table experiences considerable changes in Lanzhou. Centrifugal model tests were performed to investigate the settlement of strip footings on loess subject to rising water table under different foundation pressures. The air-fall method was employed to reconstitute the artificial loess samples. The applicability of the air-fall prepared samples was evaluated against the parameters of the undisturbed loess samples obtained from the same location. The results of centrifuge tests reveal that the footing settlement increases significantly with increasing foundation loading pressure or increasing rising water table. However, the rate of increase in ultimate footing settlement under combined rising water level and footing pressure is established to be more intriguing. A simplified method for predicting the ultimate footing settlement on collapsible loess due to rising water table height is proposed. The proposed formulation is verified, as there is a good agreement between the test results under various loading pressures and rising water heights and the predicted ultimate footing settlements. A discussion on the ultimate settlement of strip footings subjected to rising water table against conventional bearing capacity safety factors is presented to provide some basis for the foundation design consideration under rising water scenario.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".