Optimization of Bearing Capacity of Sandy Soil Using Geosynthetic: An Experimental Study on Sand Types and Reinforcement Material Variations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sand is commonly used as a base material in construction; however, its non-cohesive nature and high deformability make it less ideal for directly supporting structural loads.One of the solutions developed to address this limitation is the use of geosynthetic materials for soil reinforcement.This study aims to analyze the influence of sand gradation (coarse, medium, fine) and types of geosynthetics (woven geotextile, nonwoven geotextile, and geogrid) on the bearing capacity of sand, with geosynthetics placed at a fixed depth of 5 cm.The testing was conducted using a plate load test within a smallscale laboratory model box.Results indicate that the combination of coarse sand and geogrid produced the highest bearing capacity, increasing from 161.46 kg (unreinforced) to 261.63 kg.Woven and non-woven geotextiles also improved bearing capacity, albeit with lower effectiveness.The stress-strain graph shows that the use of geosynthetics enhances soil stiffness and reduces deformation.The ultimate bearing capacity versus settlement graph confirms that geogrid and woven geotextile are effective in maintaining structural performance up to a 1-inch settlement.Overall, geosynthetics proved to be effective, particularly in coarse sand, with a bearing capacity increase of up to 61.33%.
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".