Bearing capacity and settlement of weak fly ash ground improved using lime fly ash or stone columns
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An experimental study was conducted to evaluate the suitability of lime for the improvement of weak fly ash ground. In the study, a series of unconfined and confined compression tests were carried out on cylindrical samples in the laboratory and on cubic samples in the field, of Lime-FA (lime fly ash) mixtures with various mixing contents of lime and curing times. Some samples were compressed under a soaking condition with water. A series of full-scale physical tests in the field and small-scale physical tests in the laboratory were conducted on a foundation (or rigid plate) on weak fly ash ground improved using Lime-FA or stone columns, which form a composite foundation. Some physical tests were carried out under a soaking condition. From the test and physical model study, it was found that the Lime-FA mixture has a larger shear strength than that of fly ash when the mixing content of lime is larger than 10%. When the weak fly ash ground is improved with Lime-FA columns, the bearing capacity of the fly ash ground is increased, and the settlement is reduced largely. However, when the ground is soaked under water, the corresponding shear strength of the Lime-FA mixture is decreased, the bearing capacity of the Lime-FA composite ground is decreased, and the settlement is increased. A plate loading test with soaking test on a layer of 1.15 m thick fly ash was also done in the laboratory. The test results show that the top fly ash layer is not suitable as a foundation soil layer and should be replaced with other granular soils, rather than simply compacted to a higher density, due to the negative impact of soaking. Results from the test program are presented and discussed.Key words: fly ash, lime, unconfined compressive strength, shear strength, bearing capacity, settlement, soaking.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".