Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper describes large-size direct shear tests on soil-geotextile interfaces. Medium-grained, uniform sand and three varieties of woven and nonwoven geotextiles manufactured with different techniques are utilized to investigate the soil-geotextile interface friction coefficient (f*). Tests were carried out using an apparatus specifically designed for interface testing, and results were compared with those obtained from the conventional direct shear equipment. The results obtained from this study indicated that the determination of peak interface behaviour was not a trivial matter, as the results were significantly affected by the boundary and testing conditions of the testing apparatus. The residual interface behaviour was investigated by multiple reversal direct shear tests. Since the use of multiple reversal direct shear tests on the proposed apparatus can impose a high degree of shear displacement and stress uniformity on the soil-geotextile interface, a more reliable definition of the residual interface friction can be obtained. The results indicate that woven-nonwoven geotextile interfaces exhibit a significant postpeak strength loss after a number of shear cycles. In the case of woven geotextiles, this is attributed to the opening up of the filaments associated with the physical damage caused during shear, whereas for nonwoven geotextiles it is due to the pulling out or tearing of filaments.Key words: geotextile, direct shear test, interface friction coefficient, peak shear strength, residual shear strength.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".