Failure, instability, and the second work increment in loose silty sand
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Triaxial tests have been performed to demonstrate the conditions for stability and instability in loose silty sand. Drucker (1951) and Hill (1958) stability conditions in terms of the sign of the second work increment were employed in the design of the stress paths used in the triaxial compression and extension tests performed with quasi-constant shear stress while the mean normal stress was reduced until failure occurred. It is shown that the sand is completely stable under drained conditions for any stress path and irrespective of the sign of the second work increment. This is demonstrated by completely stopping the change in stresses and observing the stable behavior in the range of stresses where the sand contracts and where it dilates. Once the effective stress failure surface is passed, the sand becomes unstable, and the sign of the second work increment is always negative. Run-away instability can occur inside the failure surface for loose silty sand under undrained conditions for which the sand tends to contract, pore pressures continue to develop, and the second work increment is negative. Liquefaction may follow if the loose silty sand is sufficiently loose.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".