Experimental Study on the Reliability of Scaling Down Techniques Used in Direct Shear Tests to Determine the Shear Strength of Rockfill and Waste Rocks
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The determination of shear strength parameters for coarse granular materials such as rockfill and waste rocks is challenging due to their oversized particles and the minimum required ratio of 10 between the specimen width (W) and the maximum particle size (dmax) of tested samples for direct shear tests. To overcome this problem, a common practice is to prepare test samples by excluding the oversized particles. This method is called the scalping scaling down technique. Making further modifications on scalped samples to achieve a specific particle size distribution curve (PSDC) leads to other scaling down techniques. Until now, the parallel scaling down technique has been the most popular and most commonly applied, generally because it produces a PSDC parallel and similar to that of field material. Recently, a critical literature review performed by the authors revealed that the methodology used by previous researchers to validate or invalidate the scaling down techniques in estimating the shear strength of field materials is inappropriate. The validity of scaling down techniques remains unknown. In addition, the minimum required W/dmax ratio of 10, stipulated in ASTM D3080/D3080M-11 for direct shear tests, is not large enough to eliminate the specimen size effect (SSE). The authors’ recent experimental study showed that a minimum W/dmax ratio of 60 is necessary to avoid any SSE in direct shear tests. In this study, a series of direct shear tests were performed on samples with different dmax values, prepared by applying scalping and parallel scaling down techniques. All tested specimens had a W/dmax ratio equal to or larger than 60. The test results of the scaled down samples with dmax values smaller than those of field samples were used to establish a predictive equation between the effective internal friction angle (hereafter named “friction angle”) and dmax, which was then used to predict the friction angles of the field samples. Comparisons between the measured and predicted friction angles of field samples demonstrated that the equations based on scalping scaling down technique correctly predicted the friction angles of field samples, whereas the equations based on parallel scaling down technique failed to correctly predict the friction angles of field samples. The scalping down technique has been validated, whereas the parallel scaling down technique has been invalidated by the experimental results presented in this study.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle