Bibliographic record
Abstract
Effects of strain rate on the stress–strain and subsequent stress relaxation behaviors have been studied by performing triaxial compression tests on dense Virginia Beach sand specimens at three different strain rates (ratio of 256 between the slowest and the fastest) under low and high confining pressures. For the tests performed under low confining pressure, the specimens that were initially sheared at a faster rate showed a slightly higher amount of stress relaxation, but almost identical stress–strain behaviors were achieved. For tests performed under high confining pressure, the same amount of strength was achieved at high axial strains (10% to 20%), but specimens sheared at higher strain rates showed a slightly stiffer stress–strain response at low axial strains (up to 10%). Similar to the tests performed under low confining pressure, higher strain rates produced higher amounts of stress relaxation to some extent. Effects of correction of axial strain due to load cell expansion and drainage condition during stress relaxation have also been studied and the results indicated that correction of axial strain and undrained condition will both increase the observed amount of stress relaxation. Moreover, a 1 day stress relaxation curve was obtained by connecting the ending stress–strain points of six stress relaxation tests initiated at different deviator stress levels, and this curve was found to be different from the 1 day creep curve obtained from a previous study. A long-term stress relaxation test was also performed, and it showed linear reduction of deviator stress with the logarithm of time during stress relaxation. Observations made are all aligned with the phenomenon of static fatigue and the proposed mechanism for time effects in granular materials.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".