Performance of reinforced collapsible soils
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Geotechnical engineers face serious problems when construction sites contain collapsible soils, which are known by their strength when dry and experience sudden and excessive settlement when inundated. The amount of soil collapse depends on the extent of the wetting zone and the degree of saturation reached when the surface water is the source of inundation. On the other hand, full saturation of the collapsible soil and accordingly, the maximum collapse are expected when the source of inundation is the rise of groundwater table. In this thesis, experimental investigation was carried out on prototype set-up to simulate the case of a surface rigid strip footing resting on collapsible soils. The objective of this research has been to evaluate the collapse settlement of the footing when the collapsible soils are subjected to full inundation due to the rise of ground water table. The case of footings on homogeneous collapsible soils having various collapse potentials, heights and applied stresses were first examined. Then, the case of footing resting on partially replaced collapsible soils by compacted sand was tested to establish the optimum thickness of the soil replaced on the collapse settlement of these footings. In addition, tests were carried out on these footings where geosynthetic layers were placed at the interface between the replaced and the collapsible soil layers and within the replaced soil layer. Analytical and empirical models were developed to predict the collapse settlement of these footings for a given soil / replacement layer / geotextile layer conditions. Design procedures and charts were provided for practicing use.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".