Load Response and Soil Displacement Field for a Vertically Loaded Strip Footing on Sand Underlain by a Stiff Base
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Traditional bearing capacity theories assume that a foundation element is supported by a thick, uniform soil deposit. However, natural soil deposits are often stratified, i.e., a soil layer of finite thickness could be underlain by another soil layer with different material properties or shallow bedrock. In this paper, we investigate the effect of the presence of a stiff base on the load–settlement response of a half-strip model footing placed on the surface of Ottawa 20–30 (OTC) sand samples prepared inside a half-cylindrical calibration chamber. The model footing load tests were performed for different values of sand relative density DR and sand layer thickness-to-footing width ratio H/B. A series of high-resolution images collected during model footing loading were analyzed using the digital image correlation (DIC) technique to obtain the displacement and strain fields in the sand domain. The bearing capacity factor Nγ was back-calculated from the model footing test results as a function of DR and H/B. The magnitude and extent of the cumulative maximum shear strains, horizontal displacements, and vertical displacements in the sand layer depend on the depth at which the stiff base is located below the footing. The results obtained in this study show that (1) the attainment of the peak unit load for the model footing does not coincide with the formation of a fully-developed collapse mechanism, (2) the presence of a stiff base below the sand sample produces a stiffer footing load–settlement response than that obtained in the absence of the stiff base, and (3) the unit bearing capacity of the footing increases when the stiff base lies within the footing’s depth of influence.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".