MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2970036886 · doi:10.1139/cjss-2019-0071

Determining the bearing capacity factor due to nonlinear matric suction distribution in the soil

2019· article· en· W2970036886 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Hasan Ghasemzadeh, Fereshteh Akbari

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Soil Science · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSoil and Unsaturated Flow
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTerzaghi's principleSuctionBearing capacityNonlinear systemSaturation (graph theory)Geotechnical engineeringResidualMathematicsMechanicsGeologyThermodynamicsPhysicsPore water pressure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bearing capacity is often calculated in dry or saturated conditions, leading to overconservative designs, for a wide range of climates in the world. Extensive researches show that bearing capacity is significantly affected by the soil matric suction. However, in most of the presented models, uniform (and sometimes linear) suction distributions are taken into account for computing the bearing capacity. Also, there is no exact solution in the residual zone of unsaturation. In the present study, a simple method is proposed to predict the bearing capacity of footings placed on unsaturated soil, using the limit equilibrium concept. Linear and uniform variations of matric suction are considered in computations, as well as the nonlinear suction distribution. The framework of the proposed model is analogous to Terzaghi’s equation, and a novel factor is developed, during calculations, as the suction bearing capacity factor. In the case of full saturation, the proposed model is simplified to the Terzaghi’s equation. Estimated results are compared with the experimental and theoretical data available in the literature. Predicted values are in a good agreement with the measured data in the transition zone and residual zone of unsaturation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.528
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.199
Teacher spread0.186 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations18
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Soil ScienceSame topicSoil and Unsaturated FlowFrench-language works237,207