MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A Probabilistic Predictive Model for Foundation Settlement on Liquefiable Soils Improved with Ground Densification

2022· article· en· W4213414859 on OpenAlexaff
Yu‐Wei Hwang, Zach Bullock, Shideh Dashti, Abbie B. Liel

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground Structures
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCentrifugeGeotechnical engineeringShallow foundationLiquefactionSettlement (finance)GeologyFoundation (evidence)Monte Carlo methodNonlinear systemEmbedmentBearing capacityMathematicsLawComputer scienceStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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 score0.335
Threshold uncertainty score0.715

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.177
Teacher spread0.172 · 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

Citations19
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental EngineeringSame topicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground StructuresFrench-language works237,207