Vibrocompaction properties of dry sand
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The fundamental understanding of the behaviour of dry sand as it is being vibrated is necessary to properly address a number of engineering issues, such as the vibrocompaction process. The present paper first summarizes experimental works focusing on the effects of vibrations on the volume change of dry cohesionless soils. Original experiments characterizing the behaviour of dry sand subjected to vertical vibration are then presented. The volume change and the motion pattern displayed by vertically vibrated sand particles are discussed. When cohesionless soil, placed in a cylindrical container, is vertically vibrated under the gravitational field (g), experiments performed on dry Fontainebleau sand allow the distinction between three types of dynamic behaviours depending on the acceleration amplitude (a): the densification behaviour (a/g < 1), the instability surface behaviour (a/g ≈ 1), and the vibrofluid behaviour (a/g > 1). In the densification range, the sand simply settles. When the acceleration amplitude is increased beyond 1g, granular convection is observed and there is an instability in the sand mass leading to the emergence of an inclined free surface. If the acceleration amplitude is further increased, the free surface progressively flattens. There is an impressive dilatation of the whole sample and grain saltation is observed. The sand becomes fully vibrofluidized. The efficiency of the vibrocompaction process is finally discussed especially with regard to these dynamic behaviours.
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".