Behaviour of sands under generalized drainage boundary conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An experimental study of the behaviour of sands under generalized drainage boundary conditions is presented. The influence of partially drained conditions, which generally is a reflection of the loading rate and the permeability of the soil, has been studied by limiting the volumetric deformation between drained and undrained states. The effect of potential pore-pressure variations in situ has been assessed by simulating various levels of volumetric deformation during shear. Conventional drained and undrained tests were also carried out on the same sands to enable a direct evaluation of the effect of drainage. A triaxial device with the ability to control strain-paths was used to carry out the tests, and all tests were performed under compression loading with no change in total lateral stress. A systematic change in the stress–strain response was noted as the drainage conditions gradually change from drained to undrained. The maximum excess pore pressure generated owing to inhibition of drainage is almost linearly related to the amount of drainage blocked. These results support the contention that the undrained state may not represent the most damaging scenario under field loading conditions. Much smaller minimum shear strength values compared with the undrained strength were measured when pore-pressure boundary conditions caused expansive volume changes. The domain of strain-softening response, and hence liquefaction susceptibility, increased owing to such loading.Key words: partial drainage, liquefaction, strain softening, laboratory testing, soil mechanics.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".