An interpretation of structural degradation for three natural clays
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The mechanical behaviour of natural clays is influenced by the degradation of the microstructure induced by the applied loads. The consequence of progressive damage to the natural microstructure is that it is not possible to describe the state of the soil in terms of effective stress components and void ratio only, and therefore it is not possible to locate a unique state boundary surface by normalizing stresses with respect to the equivalent pressure. In this paper it is shown that, by defining a normalizing pressure that accounts for the progressive loss of structure occurring during a test, the state of the soil during loading can be completely described in a normalized stress space. The laws linking the normalizing pressure to the degree of microstructure disruption are derived from the isotropic hardening laws of two constitutive models recently proposed for natural soils. The normalizing procedure is applied to the experimental results obtained on three natural clays of different depositional origin and with different mechanical properties. For the three clays, the parameters describing structure degradation permit the assessment of the rate of loss of structure with plastic strains. For the clays examined, the volumetric plastic strains are seen to play a major role, compared to the deviatoric plastic strains, in causing progressive disruption of the microstructure. Lastly, it is shown that the initial degree of structure and the rate of structure degradation can be related to the depositional conditions and the stress history of the clay deposits.Key words: clays, compressibility, fabricstructure of soils, laboratory tests, plasticity, shear strength.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".