Quantitative Comparison of Two-Dimensional and Three-Dimensional Discrete-Element Simulations of Nominally Two-Dimensional Shear Flow
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Results obtained from numerical simulations of direct (or ring) shear tests on ASTM standard graded (Ottawa) sand using the discrete-element method with periodic boundary conditions in both two and three dimensions are reported. The data obtained from these simulations are quantitatively compared to experimental data for ASTM standard graded sand. The results show that the three-dimensional (3D) effects of nonplanar interparticle contact forces and particle motion are significant in the 3D discrete-element method simulations, even during nominally two-dimensional (2D) shear flow. Moreover, the 3D discrete-element method simulations accurately predict the peak and residual friction angles of ASTM standard graded sand. On the other hand, the 2D discrete-element method simulations fail to accurately predict the peak and residual friction angles. It is argued that the failure of the 2D discrete-element method simulations and the success of the 3D discrete-element method simulations in providing quantitatively accurate predictions of peak and residual friction angles are attributable largely to the respective absence or presence of 3D effects, including nonplanar interparticle contact forces and nonplanar particle motion, in these discrete-element method simulations.
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) | 0.001 | 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".