Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper the behaviour of two “standard research sands”, widely used for experimental purposes, is compared in a torsional hollow cylinder apparatus under monotonic and cyclic loading conditions. Both sands are fine and uniform with D50= 0.22 and 0.29 mm, respectively. However, their response to undrained monotonic loading at similar void ratios is dramatically different, with the finer sand showing strength reduction after peak and the coarser sand showing continuous increase in strength with torsional shear. The difference in response is mainly attributed to grain angularity and to a lesser degree to their grading. The results of drained torsional hollow cylinder tests show initial contraction followed by dilation. The stress ratio at phase transformation is uniquely defined by both drained and undrained tests for each sand. Cyclic loading instability is manifested by a sudden increase in shear strain and excess pore-water pressure leading to initial liquefaction. The instability initiates across the instability line for the sand showing strength reduction and across the phase transformation line for the sand showing continuous increase in strength with shearing. Both lines are defined under monotonic loading conditions. The liquefaction, stiffness, and damping characteristics of the sands are given in this paper.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".