MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2027014974 · doi:10.1139/t02-016

Soil structure interaction analysis: modeling the interface

2002· article· en· W2027014974 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Morched Zeghal, Tuncer B. Edil

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil Mechanics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSlippageShear (geology)Direct shear testGeotechnical engineeringInterface (matter)Work (physics)Constitutive equationMaterials scienceMicrostructureYield surfaceGranular materialFinite element methodStructural engineeringMonotonic functionGrain sizeMechanicsGeologyEngineeringMathematicsComposite materialMechanical engineeringPhysicsMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The sand–structure interface, developed under monotonic loading, was modeled based on physical observations. The model takes into account the macroscopic conditions to yield a general constitutive law applicable to a wide range of contact problems and the microstructural considerations constitute the specialization of the general equations to a specific problem. The surface of slippage was idealized to be sinusoidal based on an intensive numerical simulation program that made use of the discrete element technique. The model incorporates the effect of grain crushing found to play a major role in the behavior of the interface. Analysis of laboratory data revealed a close relationship between grain crushing and the work dissipated plastically during shear. The proposed elastoplastic model, requiring a limited number of parameters, predicts the shear stresses for the modified direct shear test and reproduces the shaft resistance of the shaft–sand interface pullout tests in a satisfactory manner.Key words: sand-structure interface, microstructure, grain crushing, plastic work.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.798
Threshold uncertainty score0.740

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.193 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations60
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Geotechnical JournalSame topicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil MechanicsFrench-language works237,207