Experimental and numerical studies of geosynthetic-reinforced sand slopes loaded with a footing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents the results of a series of plane strain model tests carried out on both reinforced and unreinforced sand slopes loaded with a rigid strip footing. The objectives of this study are to (i) determine the influence of geosynthetic reinforcement on the bearing-capacity characteristics of the footing on slope, (ii) understand the failure mechanism of reinforced slopes, and (iii) suggest an optimum geometry of reinforcement placement. The investigations were carried out by varying the edge distance of the footing for three different slope angles and three different types of geosynthetic. It is shown that the load-settlement behaviour and ultimate bearing capacity of the footing can be considerably improved by the inclusion of a reinforcing layer at the appropriate location in the fill slope. The optimum depth of the reinforcement layer, which resulted in maximum bearing capacity ratio (BCR), is found to be 0.5 times the width of the footing. It is also shown that for both reinforced and unreinforced slopes, the bearing capacity decreases with an increase in slope angle and a decrease in edge distance. At an edge distance of five times the width of the footing, bearing capacity becomes independent of the slope angle. The effectiveness of the geosynthetic in improving the bearing capacity of the footing is attributed to its primary properties such as aperture size and axial stiffness. A numerical study using finite element analyses was carried out to verify the model test results. The agreement between observed and computed results is found to be reasonably good in terms of load-settlement behaviour and optimum geometry of georeinforcement placement.Key words: model tests, footing, bearing capacity, fill slope, finite element method, geosynthetic.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".