Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rotational hardening is a constitutive feature of anisotropic clay plasticity models that allows rotation of the yield and plastic potential surfaces in stress space in order to simulate, more realistically than isotropic models, the material response under various loading conditions. The anatomy of some well-known rotational hardening rules, as well as a novel proposition with certain advantages, is performed in relation to the following characteristics: (a) the conditions under which rotational hardening yields a unique critical state line in e–p space; (b) the restrictions on model parameters necessary to prevent excessive and unrealistic rotation of the yield and plastic potential surfaces; and (c) the analytical description of the response of rotational hardening to loading at constant stress and strain-rate ratios, including K0 consolidation, and to undrained shearing. The anatomy will reveal strong and weak features, and corrections for the latter are proposed. Special attention is given to calibration of the rotational hardening rules parameters based on easily available experimental data, such as the K0 value. Simulations of experimental data under drained and undrained loading after isotropic and K0 consolidation at various OCRs for associative and non-associative flow rules illustrate the simulative capabilities of the rotational hardening rules considered.
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 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".