MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2089134388 · doi:10.1139/t06-079

The use of tangent stiffness to characterize the resilient response of unbound crushed aggregates

2006· article· en· W2089134388 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
J.‐M. Konrad

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground Structures
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStress pathStiffnessTangentTangent stiffness matrixTangent modulusGeotechnical engineeringOverburden pressureStress (linguistics)Materials scienceStructural engineeringModulusDissipation factorCompactionMathematicsShear (geology)GeologyEngineeringComposite materialGeometryStiffness matrix

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Repeated-load triaxial tests were conducted on crushed granitic base-course material to study the resilient response under different stress paths and compaction states. It has been established that the resilient response of this prestrained unbound granular material is best defined in terms of tangent stiffness (E t ) and vertical stress (σ v ). The data also revealed the existence of a threshold value of tangent stiffness that is essentially dependent on initial confining stress for a given compaction state. When the tangent modulus exceeds this threshold value, a unique relationship between tangent stiffness and vertical stress exists for mobilized shear resistance ratios less than 0.4. This E t –σ v relationship is independent of stress path. A simple power law model can be used to predict the resilient response of unbound base-course material and an approximate value of resilient modulus for any desired stress path and initial stress condition. The use of the tangent stiffness – vertical stress model for pavement design appears to be very promising.Key words: granular, material, resilient modulus, triaxial, stress path.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.915
Threshold uncertainty score0.782

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.197
Teacher spread0.183 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Geotechnical JournalSame topicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground StructuresFrench-language works237,207