Stress Distribution in a Cohesionless Backfill Poured in a Silo
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The field of infrastructure rehabilitation and development requires a better understanding of soil-structure interactions. The interaction behaviour between soil and structures has mostly been investigated through theoretical and/or numerical analysis. This paper presents a series of experiments performed on an intermediate-scale physical model made of an instrumented silo. In contrast to most reported laboratory tests, both the horizontal and vertical stresses were monitored during backfilling operations realised by wild pouring. Drop tests were performed to investigate the density variation with respect to the drop (or falling) height of the soil, which were introduced in the pressure interpretation. The results showed that horizontal stress in the direction parallel to the pouring plane is larger than that perpendicular to the pouring plane. Apparently, the vertical stress is well-described using the arching solution by considering the backfill in an active state, whereas the horizontal stress perpendicular to the pouring plane is better described with the arching solution by considering the backfill in an at-rest state. An estimate of the earth pressure coefficients based on the measured vertical and horizontal stresses indicates, however, that the backfill was closer to an at-rest state in the direction perpendicular to the pouring plane, whereas in the direction parallel to the pouring plane, it was in a state between at-rest and passive. These results indicate that it is important to measure both the horizontal and vertical stresses to obtain a whole picture of the state of the backfill. The results showed also that the horizontal stresses can be larger than those calculated by the overburden solution, probably due to dynamic loading by drop mass during the filling operation and stress lock.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".