## 3 Results  
Laboratory tests of static loading under horizontal soil-displacement conditions have demonstrated an increase in settlement under horizontal forces, and hence a decrease in bearing capacity. However, conical models are superior in stability, due to the increase in cross-section of inverted conical models as they settle into the ground. The applied load of 200 N with a simultaneous horizontal displacement of 9 mm/m led to the settlement of foundation models of up to 8 mm for the cone-top pile models, and up to 9 mm for the conical models described in the article [9]. For isolated shallow foundations of a classical shape, with a constant cross-section, such a load with a horizontal displacement of 3 mm/m led to the bearing capacity failure of the foundations. The results of laboratory modeling, presented in Table 2, demonstrate a regular increase in the settlement of all types of foundations as horizontal tension strains in the soil increase. The cone-top pile foundation showed the least settlement under all loads, with values rising from 0.75 mm at 100 N (no strain) to 0.90 mm settlement at 9 mm/m strain, and from 8.06 mm settlement to 11.43 mm at 200 N loading. The conical foundation exhibited slightly higher settlements, increasing from 0.77 mm to 1.58 mm settlement at 100 N load and from 8.96 mm to 12.62 mm settlement at 200 N loading, with rising strain. The shallow isolated foundation, however, showed significantly larger settlements at equivalent loads, reaching 11.08 mm at only 3 mm/m strain and 150 N, emphasizing its lower stability under lateral soil deformation. These results highlight the superior performance of conical and cone-top foundations, particularly in resisting deformation under horizontal tension. The numerical modeling results closely reflect the trends observed in laboratory tests, with slightly higher predicted settlements for the conical foundation under strain, as shown in Table 3. For example, the numerical model of the conical foundation showed settlement increasing from 0.75 mm to 1.55 mm settlement at 100 N loading, and from 9.54 mm to 13.51 mm at 200 N, which is slightly greater than the experimental results. The cone-top pile foundation again showed the most stable performance, with settlements ranging from 0.75 mm to 0.90 mm at 100 N loading and from 8.40 mm to 11.82 mm at 200 N across increasing strains, closely matching the lab outcomes. The shallow isolated foundation also demonstrated poor performance in both simulations and experiments. Overall, numerical modeling validated the laboratory trends and confirmed that conical and cone-top foundations are more resilient under combined vertical load and lateral soil strain conditions. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Foundation Model Type**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Horizontal Tension**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Settlement Under Load, mm**} \\ \cline{3-5}  & **Strains of Soil, mm/m** & **100 N** & **150 N** & **200 N** \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Conical foundation with an aperture angle of 90 degrees from [9]} & 0 & 0.77 & 2.81 & 8.96 \\  & 3 & 1.05 & 3.52 & 10.38 \\  & 6 & 1.35 & 4.11 & 11.51 \\  & 9 & 1.58 & 4.72 & 12.62 \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Cone-top pile foundation} & 0 & 0.75 & 2.03 & 8.06 \\  & 3 & 0.80 & 2.80 & 8.95 \\  & 6 & 0.85 & 3.20 & 9.88 \\  & 9 & 0.90 & 3.88 & 11.43 \\ \hline Shallow isolated foundation from [9] & 0 & 1.30 & 7.15 & - \\  & 3 & 1.53 & 11.08 & - \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Results of the laboratory modeling for loading–settlement interaction. In general, numerical modeling confirmed the results of laboratory tests with minimal deviations in settlement data under identical initial parameters of the soil and foundation models (Figure 12). While isolated shallow foundations lost their load-bearing capacity after a load of 150 N, conical foundations continued to withstand the load even under horizontal soil displacements of up to 9 mm/m.