MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401977913 · doi:10.1080/19386362.2024.2391835

Dimensioning equivalent of circular footing subjected to eccentric load with effective area approach

2024· article· en· W4401977913 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Geotechnical Engineering · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground Structures
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEccentricity (behavior)Bearing capacityDimensioningStructural engineeringMoment (physics)EngineeringReduction (mathematics)Structural loadGeotechnical engineeringMathematicsGeometryPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Existence of moment or eccentricity is a common loading situation; thus, it is necessary to be totally aware of the circular footing bearing capacity subjected to eccentric load to design economically. This paper presents a design chart for transforming a circular footing under eccentric load into an equivalent rectangular footing, allowing the use of existing bearing capacity formulas. A new “effective area” is defined, and characterized by a uniform soil pressure distribution. Unlike previous methods, the paper fully describes the calculation process for this area. The results show significant differences in the dimensions of equivalent footings compared to older methods, especially in designs with low eccentricities, leading to higher bearing capacities. Additionally, the dimensions of the “contact area,” which fully interacts with the soil, are derived to ensure compliance with building codes. Finally, simple mathematical expressions for eccentricity reduction factors are provided for both drained and undrained conditions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.692
Threshold uncertainty score0.857

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.005
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.201 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it