Shear Strength and Bearing Capacity of FibreReinforced Sand
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, direct shear tests were conducted to evaluate the effect of randomly distributed fibres on the shear strength parameters of dry sand.Polyolefin fibre which is a polymeric produced from a simple olefin (CnH2n) was mixed with dry sand to investigate the improvement of shear strength and effect on volume changes.Specimens with 0.5%, 1%, 1.5% and 2% of fibre contents with different lengths (i.e.15mm and 30mm) are prepared in repeatable steps and tested in direct shear tests.In addition, two sand types; coarse sand and fin sand were used in this investigation to study the grading size effects on the behaviour of the fiber-reinforced sand.Results indicated that, the inclusion of randomly distributed discrete fibres significantly improved the shear strength of sand.The existence of polymeric fibre inside the sand developed what is called apparent tensile cohesion in addition to the sand normal internal friction angle.The optimum fibre percentage for improving both friction angle and apparent tensile cohesion was about 1%.Adding fibre more than this ratio resulted in a significant reduction in both soil shear strength parameters.The effect of fibre on sand tensile cohesion is more pronounced compared to its effect on the friction angle.A bearing capacity of hypothetical footing resting on ground surface of fibre reinforced sand was estimated and discussed.Finally, quantitative effects of fibre contents on both shear strength and volume changes for sand are presented and discussed.
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".