Spatial variation of void ratio and shear band thickness in sand using X-ray computed tomography
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A detailed study of spatial variation of void ratio and shear band thickness measurements is presented in this paper. A prismatic sand specimen that initially measured 57·4 mm wide × 120·5 mm long × 182·1 mm high was sheared under plane-strain (biaxial) loading conditions. The specimen was prepared at a relative density of 79% using F-75 Ottawa sand. X-ray computed tomography was used to scan the specimen before shearing and after the onset of the shear band. The specimen failed through a single shear band with an inclination angle of 65·6° measured from the direction of the minor principal stress. Computer algorithms were developed to calibrate CT images and quantify void ratio (e) variation within the specimen. CT data analysis revealed cross-sectional spatial variation in void ratio where density is higher in regions close to the edges of the specimen due to membrane effects and confining pressure with no significant variation in void ratio in the axial direction (top to bottom) before shearing. The shear band was easily identified from the CT images, and analysis of void ratio showed a noticeable jump in void ratio profile across the shear band. A detailed statistical summary of the thickness of the shear band and variation of void ratio across the shear band is presented and discussed.
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.
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 it