Improved cyclic load resistance of sand beds with geogrid-reinforced dense gravelly layers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Foundations bearing on uncompacted coarse-grained soil deposits (e.g. aeolian fine sands) can experience excessive settlements under monotonic and cyclic loading conditions. Straightforward strategies for improving their geomechanical behaviour include mass replacement of the uniform fine sand with high-quality soil (typically coarser sand-with-gravel (S-G) material), along with including geosynthetic reinforcement layers, although this approach may prove uneconomical in practice. The present study advocates an alternative approach employing geogrid-reinforced thin dense S-G layers incorporated at discrete depths within the backfilled fine-sand deposit. A comprehensive programme of 1 g testing was performed to investigate the relative performances of fine sand beds incorporating geogrid layers, unreinforced thin dense S-G layers and geogrid-reinforced thin dense S-G layers compared to the plain (fully unreinforced) fine sand bed. A 150-mm dia. footing bearing on the surface of the sand beds was subjected to a combination of static loading followed by 2000 load cycles of different intensities. The experimental results confirmed that compared to the unreinforced/geogrid-reinforced sand beds, the sand beds with geogrid-reinforced dense S-G layers demonstrated superior performance in terms of limiting the cumulative footing settlement. The demonstrated concept could be of practical use in the economic construction of reinforced soil walls, reinforced foundation beds, and so on.
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".