MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1903145330 · doi:10.1139/t2012-069

Static and dynamic properties of a lightly cemented silicate-grouted sand

2012· article· en· W1903145330 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
D. Porcino, Vincenzo Marcianò, Raffaella Granata

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGrouting, Rheology, and Soil Mechanics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGroutGeotechnical engineeringShearing (physics)Cohesion (chemistry)Cementation (geology)DilatantLiquefactionGeologyTriaxial shear testMaterials scienceShear (geology)Composite materialCement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper describes the results of an experimental investigation on the behaviour of a lightly grouted loose medium sand under both monotonic and cyclic loading. The experimental programme in the present study was carried out on both untreated and treated sand specimens stabilized with a silica-based grout, and comprises isotropic triaxial compression tests equipped with bender elements, drained triaxial monotonic shearing tests, and undrained cyclic tests in a simple shear (SS) apparatus. The results highlight that the weak cementation level induced by chemical treatment was sufficient to moderately increase small-strain stiffness and stress–dilatancy of the grouted sand during drained monotonic shear. A small cohesion intercept was observed in the analyzed failure envelope, while cyclic liquefaction resistance exhibited a much more significant increase, with a different pattern of behaviour between low and high stress levels. Finally, undrained cyclic SS test results evidenced that silicate grout employed in this research improves undrained cyclic shear strength in a manner similar to densification of the same material up to a density index of approximately 75%.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.872
Threshold uncertainty score0.472

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.193
Teacher spread0.182 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations76
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Geotechnical JournalSame topicGrouting, Rheology, and Soil MechanicsFrench-language works237,207