Laboratory Testing of Enhancing the Bearing Capacity of Strip Footing with Woven Geotextiles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Laboratory sand box tests were performed in this study to investigate the improvement in bearing capacity of a strip footing reinforced with woven geotextile in dry sand. The test cell is 0.9m wide, 0.9m long and 1.0m high. A hydraulic loading system was used to apply the normal force to a 0.85m × 0.1m × 0.05m (length × width × height) strip footing. The unreinforced bearing capacity was obtained and compared with value calculated using Terzaghi’s equation. Various parameters such as: burial depth, length of reinforcement, number of layers and distance between layers were varied to investigate their effects on the bearing capacity. Results of these tests indicate that the optimum burial depth of reinforcement is about 0.4 times the width of footing, with a bearing capacity ratio (BCR) of about 1.67. The optimum reinforcement length is about 3~4 times the width of footing with a BCR value of 1.81. The improvements in bearing capacity obtained from laboratory testing are in accord with previous numerical simulation. However, the loading behaviors are quite different due to the failure mechanism assumed in the numerical simulation.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".