Bearing capacity of strip footings seated on unreinforced and reinforced granular layers over random homogeneous and isotropic spatially variable undrained soft clay
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The bearing capacity of a footing seated directly on a soft clay foundation with constant undrained shear strength is the classical Prandtl geotechnical problem. However, a footing seated directly on an undrained clay soil is an unlikely arrangement in practice. Rather, a granular layer is used as a working platform for the construction of the footing and to dissipate the footing loads over a wider area of the clay foundation surface. This paper revisits the footing problem for the case of a footing seated directly on the clay foundation, and seated on an unreinforced and geosynthetic reinforced granular layer overlying the clay foundation. Both deterministic and stochastic numerical modelling of the bearing capacity problem using the program FLAC 2D were carried out. The relationship between the design factor of safety and probabilistic margins of safety is explored for clay foundations with random homogenous and isotropic spatially variable undrained shear strength with mean strengths from 5 to 25 kPa (very soft to soft clay). For practical target probabilistic margins of safety against exceeding a design bearing capacity, the random homogenous soil condition is shown to be the most critical case for design.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".