MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3000512581 · doi:10.1061/9780784481479.039

Field Experiment of Rocking Shallow Foundation on Cohesive Soil Subjected to Lateral Cyclic Loads

2018· article· en· W3000512581 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Sharma Keshab, Lijun Deng

Bibliographic record

VenueGeotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics V · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSeismic Performance and Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMitacsUniversity of Alberta
KeywordsGeotechnical engineeringShallow foundationFoundation (evidence)DissipationSettlement (finance)StiffnessBearing capacityStructural engineeringGeologyDeckSuperstructureEngineeringSoil waterSoil science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Rocking shallow foundations may act as a good mechanism for base isolation that limits the seismic force to the superstructure during strong seismic events; however, a lack of comprehensive field investigation might have limited the use of rocking foundation. This paper presented a field study of a rocking shallow foundation resting on a natural soil deposits in Alberta, Canada. The foundation system consisted of a 1.5 m by 1.0 m concrete footing, column, and deck to simulate a prototype bridge system. A geotechnical investigation was carried out to determine soil conditions before and after the experiments. The footing was subjected to slow cyclic loading which consists of 4 to 5 packets of which each contain 3 to 4 cycles of similar displacement amplitude. The drift ratio was increased to a maximum of 5%. The estimated factors of safety against bearing failure ranges from 4 to 22. Nonlinear behaviour of the foundations and underlying soil was evident; changes in the physical and mechanical properties of underlying soils were characterized. Energy dissipation, residual settlement, and stiffness degradation observed in the tests were discussed.

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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.823

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.203 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations2
Published2018
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics VSame topicSeismic Performance and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207