Fabric dilatancy and the plasticity modeling of granular media
Bibliographic record
Abstract
SUMMARY A novel conceptual model of the mechanics of sands is developed within an elastic–plastic framework. Central to this model is the realization that volume changes in anisotropic granular materials occur as a result of two fundamentally different mechanisms. The first is purely kinematic, dilative, and is the result of the changes in anisotropic fabric. There is also a second volume change in granular media that occurs as a direct response to changes in stress as in a standard elastic/plastic continuum. The inclusion of the two sources of volume change results in three important datum states. When subjected to isotropic strains, the resulting stress state in granular materials is not isotropic but lies upon the kinematic normal consolidation line. There exists a state at which the fabric‐induced volumetric strain rate becomes equal to the stress‐induced volumetric strain rate making the total plastic volumetric strain rate equal to zero. Granular response changes from contractive to dilative at this phase transformation line. The third datum state is the one in which the stress‐induced volumetric strain rate is zero. The sand, however, continues to dilate at this state with the difference between stress and dilation ratio a constant as predicted by Taylor's stress–dilatancy rule. These predictions are shown in accordance with experimental data from a series of drained tests and undrained on Ottawa sand. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".