Cyclic Resistance of a Loose Sand Subjected to Rotation of Principal Stresses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An experimental study aimed at providing insights into the effects of the inclination of principal stress directions with respect to the bedding plane and the role of principal stress rotation on the cyclic resistance of sands is presented. A new hollow cylinder torsional shear device commissioned at Carleton University was used to conduct the experiments in water-deposited Fraser River sand. Specimens at identical initial states were subjected to a constant amplitude cyclic shear stress along loading paths that impose different levels of stress rotation. Cyclic resistance decreased significantly as the maximum orientation of the major principal stress increased to approximately 45°–60°, but it increased with further rotation. This is contrary to the conventional idea according to which the weakest response is expected when the loading causes larger principal stress rotation and/or when the major principal stress is aligned with the bedding planes. The alignment of the plane of maximum shear stress toward and stronger time history of shear stress on the horizontal bedding planes lead to increased liquefaction susceptibility. The nature of shear stress on the bedding planes appears more critical than the alignment of the major principal stress along the bedding planes during cyclic loading. Test results also suggest that cyclic simple shear tests on the basis of stress rotation would represent a lower bound or closer to lower bound resistance. Thus, cyclic simple shear tests provide a convenient means of determining the cyclic resistance and the obtained resistance can be considered a conservative measure if field loading conditions deviate from that in simple shear.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".