Bibliographic record
Abstract
Investigation of Foundation Failures Ali Buabbas Foundations form a very critical component of any structure. The integrity and lifespan of the structure are dependent on the strength and durability of the foundation. Under ideal conditions, immediately after the structure is constructed, the foundation meets all the requirements of the structure. However, after a while, due to the action of many other factors, the structure’s foundation may no longer satisfy the needs of the structure. Some of the factors contributing to the failure of the foundation can be due to natural events. Construction engineers should anticipate these factors to minimize their effects. Deep and shallow foundations exhibit different characteristics, making them experience slightly varying mechanisms of foundation failures. The characteristics of soil into which a foundation is constructed dictate the durability of the foundation. Soil which shows a higher bearing capacity, tends to offer a robust support to the foundation and makes it last longer. However, soil with undesirable characteristics such as low bearing capacity and a high-water level constantly jeopardizes a foundation's integrity, triggering its failure. In this study, several foundation failures were studied, failures were identified, and remediation measures were reviewed wherever applicable. The case study of the Lake View Tower in Sudbury, Canada highlights how the poor soil bearing capacity contributed to the eventual demolition of the building. Natural calamities such as earthquakes and tornadoes also lead to foundation failure. Frost action on the Family Life Center (FLC) in North Dakota, United States affected the integrity of its foundation leading to cracks in the wall. Remediation of the foundation is one of the ways to mitigate the effects of vulnerable foundations. The success of any type of remediation is dependent on its ability to restore the needs of the structure whose foundation has weakened. Use of push piles in the FLC building shows how the remediation was beneficial in this case of shallow foundation.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".