Bibliographic record
Abstract
The paper presents the results of laboratory triaxial compression tests to study the stiffness of very loose Fraser River sands. The stiffness has been shown to be very dependent on the time of confinement prior to shearing and the stress ratio at which the sample is aged. Higher stress ratios resulted in very low initial moduli with no ageing, but the moduli increased by several hundred percent during the first 1000 min of ageing. For ageing at a stress ratio of 1.0 (i.e., isotropic ageing), the initial moduli were higher than those for ageing at high stress ratios, but the stiffness increased by only about 60% during the first 1000 min of ageing. The rate of stiffness increase was approximately linear with the logarithm of time up to ageing times of 10 000 min (>1 week). Ageing at any stress ratio resulted in reduced contractive volumetric strain during subsequent shearing, reflecting a change in soil structure during ageing. The dεv/dεaratio under triaxial compression loading decreased as the ageing stress ratio increased. The results suggest that close attention must be paid to the age of laboratory samples prepared to study the stressstrain response of sands at strains up to about 0.1%, particularly in studies on loose sand.Key words: sands, ageing, creep, modulus.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".