Model Test and Corresponding Simulation onCompressive Characteristics of Soilbags
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is known that response acceleration of superstructure supported by spread foundation will decrease due to the rocking of the footing when subjected to earthquake loading, which makes it possible to reduce the cross section of the pier supporting the superstructure. However, supporting ground of a spread foundation should have enough bearing capacity. Therefore, when a spread foundation is constructed on soft ground, it should be improved by replacement of gravel or ground improvement method to increase the bearing capacity. The authors have already proposed a foundation by replacing the soft ground beneath a footing with soilbags. It is wellknown that soilbags will receive much larger compressive force than filled material only. Thus, it is expected that soilbags will withstand large load beneath the footing even during earthquake. In verifying the effectiveness of the proposed foundations, the compressive characteristics of soilbags is crucial. Therefore, in this study, a compression test on soilbags was conducted and the compressive characteristics of soilbags was carefully investigated. Moreover, numerical simulation of the compression test was carried out and the mechanism of compression deformation of soilbags was examined. The calculated results coincided almost exactly with the experimental results. The calculated results also showed that vertical stress was largely shared by the centre part of soilbags, where restraint effect of a bag was more prominent.
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".