Soil-particle and pore orientations during drained and undrained shear of a cohesive sandy siltclay soil
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The orientations of particles, pores, and other constituents of an artificially made cohesive sandy siltclay soil were studied to investigate how they change during drained and undrained shear. The results show that the orientation pattern before shearing is nearly random, although there may be some degree of preferred orientation caused by the overburden pressure. The degree of preferred orientation increases as the shearing increases until failure in both the drained and undrained tests and increases towards the failure plane. After failure, the degree of preferred orientation does not change considerably near the failure plane but does continue to increase away from it. The number of oriented particles, pores, and other constituents increases, but their averages stay about the same as the shearing continues after failure in the drained tests. The differences between the degrees of preferred orientations 5 and 10 mm away from the failure planes at different shear (horizontal) displacements are much less in the drained tests than in the undrained tests, indicating formation of a wider deformation zone in the drained tests. This is probably because particles in the drained tests have enough time to respond to the applied shear stresses and change their orientation. This may explain why deformations occur in wide zones along tectonically active creeping (aseismic) faults, whose mechanisms are analogous to those of drained shear tests, and in narrow zones along seismic faults, whose mechanisms are analogous to those of undrained shear tests.Key words: shear test, soil structure, soil fabric, preferred orientation, seismic, aseismic.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".