Experimental creep behaviour and modelling of silicified sand
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The stress–strain–time behaviour was investigated for sand that was treated by a new biologically inspired silicification process. This ground treatment method offers the potential to achieve similar performance as existing soil treatment methods using lower concentrations of environmentally benign component materials. This experimental study evaluated the influence of a polyelectrolyte pretreatment and test procedure on the fundamental strength of medium dense Ottawa 20/30 sand silicified with 20% sodium silicate. Samples were subjected to unconfined single-increment, unconfined incremental, and confined incremental creep tests. The results show that the creep behaviour of silicified samples is similar to the behaviour of traditionally treated sand. Fundamental strengths were approximately 50 kPa when unconfined, and ranged from 117 kPa to greater than 340 kPa when confined at 69 and 138 kPa, respectively. The data also show that incremental creep tests may be a more rapid means of determining parameters for creep modelling than the existing standardised single-increment test method. Parameters for modelling long-term deformation behaviour are consistent with published parameters for existing soil treatment methods even though compositional differences exist between the samples used in studies.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 teacher head, 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".