A Probabilistic Predictive Model for Foundation Settlement on Liquefiable Soils Improved with Ground Densification
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we present a probabilistic predictive procedure for a foundation’s permanent average settlement on liquefiable soils improved with ground densification. The proposed procedure is based on 770 three-dimensional (3D), fully coupled, effective-stress, finite-element analyses designed through quasi-Monte Carlo sampling of key input parameters. The numerical models are themselves calibrated and validated with centrifuge model studies, and they consider realistic, nonlinear, 3D structures on shallow foundations, seismic soil–structure interaction, interlayering and layer cross interactions, ground densification properties and geometry, and ground motion characteristics. We use nonlinear regression with lasso-type regularization to estimate model coefficients. The primary predictors of a foundation’s settlement are identified as the cumulative absolute velocity of the outcropping rock motion; total thickness of the soil deposit above bedrock and cumulative thickness of the critical liquefiable layer(s); the foundation’s bearing pressure, size, and embedment depth; the structure’s total height; the achieved density and size of ground improvement; and the thickness of the remaining undensified susceptible soils within the foundation’s influence zone. In the end, the predictive model is shown to capture the trends in a limited number of centrifuge and field case histories collected from the literature. The insight from the numerical database and the first-of-its-kind predictive model aims to guide the design of liquefaction mitigation strategies that improve the performance of the soil–foundation–structure system holistically and reliably.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".