MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4360619558 · doi:10.1061/9780784484692.005

Probabilistic Assessment of Bearing Capacity of Strip Footings Seated on Geosynthetic Reinforced Soil Deposits Using Finite Element Limit Analysis (FELA) and Response Surface Method (RSM)

2023· article· en· W4360619558 on OpenAlexaff
Masoud Jamshidi Chenari, Meghdad Payan, Reza Jamshidi Chenari, Pooya Dastpak, Rita L. Sousa

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Analysis
Canadian institutionsRoyal Military College of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProbabilistic logicBearing capacityFinite element methodMonte Carlo methodLimit analysisUpper and lower boundsResponse surface methodologyLimit (mathematics)Bearing (navigation)Probabilistic analysis of algorithmsMathematicsGeotechnical engineeringComputer scienceStructural engineeringApplied mathematicsMathematical optimizationEngineeringStatisticsMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The paper demonstrates the use of the response surface method (RSM) to carry out probabilistic assessment of the bearing capacity of shallow footings seated on geosynthetic reinforced granular layers over randomly variable soft clay deposits. The method substantially reduces the number of Monte Carlo simulations required to carry out the probabilistic finite element limit analyses of the bearing capacity problem. A finite element limit analysis model based on the lower bound theorem is furnished and verified using some well-known analytical methods, and is then used to generate a large synthetic database of numerical results for bearing capacity of shallow foundations on a reinforced granular fill over randomly variably soft clay deposits. To this end, a permutation of the important influencing parameters is formed, and lower bound FELA-based limit loads are sought through optimization in MATLAB. A closed-form solution is formulated using RSM-based polynomials. The RSM equations, which are acquired from least squares regression analyses, are used to carry out probabilistic Monte Carlo simulations, and the results are presented in forms of cumulative distribution functions. Results from the probabilistic analyses are introduced into reliability-based design approach to render design loads for different reliability levels.

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)0.001
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 score0.204
Threshold uncertainty score0.897

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.244 · 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

Citations14
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGeotechnical Engineering and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207