Footprints on the beach: visualising dilation-induced air entry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The dry fringe that appears beneath a footprint on a beach is a visual manifestation of dilation. Dilation causes the sand to attempt to increase in volume on shearing, resulting in negative pore pressure and enhanced bearing capacity. Conventional theory cannot explain this increase in strength, suggesting instead that bearing capacity with the phreatic surface at the sand surface should be approximately half that of the dry case. To explore this apparent contradiction, ten load-controlled bearing capacity experiments were performed on transparent soil with phreatic surfaces ranging from 100 mm below to 30 mm above the footing. For phreatic surfaces deeper than the footing width, failure occurred within the dry material. In shallower phreatic surface conditions, bearing capacity increased as the phreatic surface approached the surface. Air entry was observed to initiate along the top surface of the saturated layer and extend to the depth of the bearing capacity mechanism. For the case of the phreatic and soil surfaces being coincident, the bearing capacity was observed to be more than double that of the dry case. In submerged cases bearing capacity was less than values at the surface, as there was no air–fluid interface to enhance the development of negative pore pressure.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".