Probabilistic Bearing Capacity Prediction of Square Footings on 3D Spatially Varying Cohesive Soils
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The bearing capacity of square and/or rectangular footings in geotechnical foundation designs traditionally is determined based on experimental observations and/or deterministic analysis assuming uniform soil profiles. However, soils are spatially varying, and this spatial variability can significantly affect the bearing capacity of the foundation soils. Probability-based design methods can address this problem explicitly. However, a full three-dimensional (3D) probabilistic simulation, such as that involving the random finite-element method, generally is prohibitive, because it involves numerous Monte Carlo runs of a complicated nonlinear elastoplastic algorithm. This paper developed and validated an approximate analytical method based on local averaging theory and geometric averages of soil properties directly under the footing. It was found that the theoretical prediction of the first two moments of a square footing bearing capacity agrees very well with crude Monte Carlo simulation. The analytical prediction of the probability of a design failure was validated through simulation and can be used directly in reliability-based designs against bearing failure.
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 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".