Bearing capacity of spread footings on aggregate pier–reinforced clay: updates and stress concentration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aggregate piers represent an economical ground improvement technique used to increase bearing capacity and reduce settlements of weak soils. Several approaches have been developed to estimate the bearing capacity of aggregate pier–reinforced clay, but these models exhibit large prediction bias and uncertainty. This study uses newly developed footing loading test data to investigate the relationship between the bearing capacity and the area replacement and slenderness ratios. The bearing capacity of a single aggregate pier, whether isolated or in groups, below a loaded footing increases as the area replacement ratio decreases due to increase in extent of confined soil surrounding the pier. The length and diameter of an aggregate pier is also shown to result in significantly increased bearing capacity, an effect that diminishes with increasing slenderness. New modifications are proposed to existing simplified and cavity expansion models to account for the effect of confinement, area replacement ratio, and slenderness ratio using a leave-one-out cross-validation technique. The cross-validation analysis resulted in robust bearing capacity models that are more accurate than existing analytical models. Additionally, the stress concentration ratio for shallow foundations supported by aggregate pier–reinforced plastic soils at failure was estimated and compared with the available data, indicating its sensitivity to design variables and showing that this critical design parameter may be predicted using the updated models.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".