Bearing capacity factors for a conical footing using lower- and upper-bound finite elements limit analysis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bearing capacity factors, N c , N q , and N γ , for a conical footing are determined by using the lower and upper bound axisymmetric formulation of the limit analysis in combination with finite elements and optimization. These factors are obtained in a bound form for a wide range of the values of cone apex angle (β) and [Formula: see text] with δ = 0, 0.5[Formula: see text], and [Formula: see text]. The bearing capacity factors for a perfectly rough (δ = [Formula: see text]) conical footing generally increase with a decrease in β. On the contrary, for δ = 0°, the factors N c and N q reduce gradually with a decrease in β. For δ = 0°, the factor N γ for [Formula: see text] ≥ 35° becomes a minimum for β ≈ 90°. For δ = 0°, N γ for [Formula: see text] ≤ 30°, as in the case of δ = [Formula: see text], generally reduces with an increase in β. The failure and nodal velocity patterns are also examined. The results compare well with different numerical solutions and centrifuge tests’ data available from the literature.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it