Bearing capacity of footings on geosynthetic-reinforced soils under combined loading
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, the ultimate bearing capacity of shallow strip footings resting on a geosynthetic-reinforced soil mass subjected to inclined and eccentric combined loading is rigorously examined through the well-established method of lower bound limit analysis (LA) in conjunction with finite element (FE) and second-order cone programming (SOCP). Lower bound limit analysis formulation is modified to consider the ultimate tensile force of the geosynthetic layer in the soil mass so as to account for both pullout (sliding) and rupture (structural) modes of reinforcement failure. The effects of several parameters, including the embedment depth (u) and the ultimate tensile strength (Tu) of the geosynthetic layer along with load inclination angle (α) and load eccentricity (e), on the bearing capacity ratio (BCR) and failure envelopes of the overlying shallow foundation are examined and discussed. The results generally show a marked increase in the ultimate bearing capacity of the surface footing against combined loading with the inclusion of a single geosynthetic layer. Results also reveal that a second intermediate reinforcement might be required to bear a dual performance against both vertical concentric and combined loading scenarios so as to more effectively support the footing.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".