Bearing Capacity and Strength of Fibre-Reinforced Sand: Experimental and Parametric Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, Polyolefin fibre which is produced from simple olefin (CnH2n) was mixed with dry sand to investigate the shear strength improvement of the admixture.Specimens with 0.5%, 1%, 1.5% and 2% fibre contents with yarns lengths of 15 mm and 30 mm are prepared in repeatable steps and tested in direct shear tests.Bearing capacity of hypothetical footing resting on ground surface of the tested fibre-reinforcedsand was estimated using Terzaghi's bearing capacity equation.Moreover, a parametric study includes thickness of reinforced layer, depth of foundation, and fibres content percent is conducted.In the parametric study, the continuous footing was analysed using procedures estimating the bearing capacity of layered soils.Results of shear strength tests indicated that, the inclusion of randomly distributed discrete fibres significantly improved the shear strength of sand.The optimum fibre percentage for improving both friction angle was about 1%.Adding fibre more than this ratio resulted in a significant reduction in soil shear strength parameters.The effect of fibre on sand apparent tensile cohesion is more pronounced compared to its effect on the friction angle.The parametric study indicates that having a continuous footing resting on a soil layer reinforced with 30 mm artificial fibres at 0.5% content provides the highest ultimate bearing capacity.Finally, the thickness of the reinforced layer and the depth of the foundation are among the parameters that affect bearing capacity.
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".