Impact of Eccentric Loading on the Structural Performance of Reinforced Concrete Pad Footings: An Experimental Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Setting out of building footings are usually carried out using profile board. This method is usually not accurate in locating the position of columns. Hence, columns that are designed as a concentric columns to their respective footings ends up being columns having eccentricities to the pad footings that supports them. Since the stress distribution under pad footing with concentric column is different from that of pad footing with eccentric column, there is need to study the effect of these eccentricity on the load carrying capacity of the pad footing. In carrying out this work, four pad footings and a typical foundation were used. The pad footings were of sizes 230 mm x 230 mm x 150 mm, with columns of 150 mm x 150 mm cross-section. The first pad footing P1SH was pad footing with short column and zero eccentricity, the second pad footing P2SL was pad footing with slender column and zero eccentricity, the third pad footing P3SL was footing with slender column with 40 mm eccentricity, while the forth pad footing P4SL was footing with slender column with 80 mm eccentricity. The foundation comprises of sand which was contained in a sandbox. The sandbox was made of steel plate of dimensions 0.3 m × 0.3 m × 0.2 m of 4 mm thickness, was used to provide support for the foundation. The foundation was produced by compacting loose sand in three layers with 20 blows per layer in the steel box and with density of about 735 kg/m3. The pad footings were placed on top of the foundation contained in the sandbox, and together were placed on the loading plate of Universal Testing Machine (UTM). Compressive load was applied on each of the pad footings through the columns till failure occurred, using UTM. It was found out that pad footing P1SH have the highest load capacity of 261.25 kN, P2SL pad footing with load capacity of 124.24 kN, P3SL pad footing with load capacity of 39.34 kN, while P4SL pad footing with load capacity of 23.30 kN.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".