Shear modulus and damping ratio characteristics of gravelly deposits
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, the results of an experimental investigation of dynamic characteristics of gravelly cobble deposits, such as shear modulus (G) and damping ratio (D), are presented. The gravelly cobble deposits are very common in the Taichung metropolitan area of Taiwan where there is an urgent need to determine G and D for dynamic analysis and design of structures. The test program includes measurements of shear wave velocity by the downhole method and large-scale dynamic triaxial tests and resonant-column tests. Special consideration is given to preparing samples of gravelly cobble deposits for laboratory tests. The "equal-weight replacement method" to scale down the real gravelly deposits to cell diameters is used for the preparation of samples. This method is found to be satisfactory, as consistent and reasonable results are obtained. The results of the present study show that the shear modulus - shear strain (G-γ) relationship for this gravelly deposit does not follow exactly those reported in the literature. The deviation of this G-γ relationship from those reported in the literature is investigated and explained.Key words: shear modulus, damping ratio, downhole, shear wave velocity, gravel.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".