Laboratory investigations of coupled polyethylene–sand–soft soil shallow foundations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigates clayey soil from a road project situated in the district of Lodhran, Punjab, Pakistan. The subgrade prepared with the soil distorted due to heaving after a certain period of its construction. First, laboratory tests were conducted to explore the reason for this problem, examining the fundamental engineering properties of soil. The test results show that the soil acts as a soft material when water content reaches 30%, significantly reducing its strength. The soft soil is generally considered unsuitable for civil work due to its poor performance behaviour. So, the performance of clayey soil was examined in the study at its soft state by coupling it with stronger materials, such as polyethylene polymeric reinforcement and sand, developing laboratory-scale foundation models. Based on the model studies, the study proposes a sustainable polyethylene–sand–soft soil model, which shows 155 and 56% higher ultimate bearing capacity (BC) than soft soil and sand-reinforced soft soil foundations. The changes in BC occur due to the reinforcement action of the polyethylene reinforcement, which is associated with its tensile membrane action effects and interlock bonding at the soil-reinforcement interface. Practically, the study can reduce the dependency of industry practitioners on sand materials. Using polyethylene in civil work is viable for environmental sustainability.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".