MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2091492033 · doi:10.1139/t01-064

Determination of plane-strain shear strength of sand from the results of triaxial tests

2001· article· en· W2091492033 on OpenAlexfundvenueno aff
Adel Hanna

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil Mechanics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsTriaxial shear testGeotechnical engineeringShearing (physics)DilatantDirect shear testPlane stressShear (geology)Shear stressMaterials scienceShear strength (soil)GeologyStructural engineeringEngineeringComposite materialFinite element method

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Experimental investigation of the shear strength of dry sands was carried out using triaxial and plane-strain apparatus. The results were used to evaluate Rowe's stress–dilatancy theory, the relationships between the shear strength components due to friction and interlocking, and the volume-change characteristics for cases of plane-strain and axisymmetric boundary conditions. Because of the complexity of the plane-strain testing apparatus in the normal soil mechanics laboratory and the difficulties involved in performing this type of shear test, it is becoming costly to obtain plane-strain test results for consulting purposes. Based on Rowe's stress–dilatancy theory, the results of the present investigation, and the available test results in the literature, two simple methods are proposed to predict the angle of shearing resistance for plane-strain conditions from the results of the conventional triaxial compression tests.Key words: shear strength, plane-strain test, triaxial test, sand, experimental investigation, geotechnical engineering.

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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.315
Threshold uncertainty score0.607

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.193 · 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

Citations40
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Geotechnical JournalSame topicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil MechanicsFrench-language works237,207