Experimental Study of Load Settlement Behaviour of Ring Footings forDifferent Internal Diameter Keeping the Contact Surface Area Same
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In some practical cases during the design of a foundation, ring configuration can be more preferred in comparison to the solid circular footing due to some field or topographical constraints.To address such issues and to reach a viable solution an experimental program was undertaken.This paper depicts the experiments conducted to study the load-settlement behaviour of ring footings on granular soil; under axial loading condition through Plate Load Test.The chosen ring footing was the special cases of the solid circular footing (Diameter 150mm); both having same contact area.The ring diameters chosen to achieve the same surface area are (in terms of Dinner-Douter) 60-160mm, 100-180mm, 200-250mm.The ring Diameter ratio for each are n=0.375,0.555, and 0.8 respectively.The Objective was to analyze the effect of increasing ring diameter ratio on the load-settlement behaviour while keeping the contact surface area same.The results show that bearing capacity of footing starts decreasing reasonably up to n=0.375 and afterward there is a steep decrease for n=0.555 and n=0.8.
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".