Experimental compression of loose sands: relevance to porosity reduction during burial in sedimentary basins
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examines the one-dimensional stressstrain behaviour of sand at effective stresses as high as 50 MPa. Experiments were performed on 22 sands (approx. 150 tests) with different grain size, uniformity coefficient, angularity, density, grain mineralogy, and clay content. The results show that minor grain corner crushing starts at stresses of 28 MPa. The point of maximum curvature (yield point) in the porosity (n) versus logarithm of vertical effective stress (σ' v ) curve defines the initiation of marked particle crushing. The stress at the yield point varies between 3 and 31 MPa depending on sand characteristics. A low yield stress is indicative of high porosity loss in the interval of intermediate stress (525 MPa). The yield stress is low when the grain size is large, grains are angular, grain strength is low, and uniformity coefficient is low. The lowest yield stress value occurs in the coarser carbonate sand, and the highest in the chert-rich sands. The sands rich in clays are highly compressible up to 25 MPa. At stresses higher than ~10 MPa, the coarser biogenic carbonate sands maintain higher porosities than the other sands. This can be explained by the fact that coarser biogenic carbonate sands have low yield stresses due to high angularity and low grain strength and initially there is local grain crushing at grain contacts. This increases the area of the grain contacts, so the coarser carbonate sands become less compressible at higher stresses. Within the high stress range (2550 MPa) the porosity loss differences related to grain size, grain shape, grain mineralogy, and sand uniformity coefficient are significantly reduced. Hence the greater compressibility of lithic and carbonate sands becomes less evident in the high-stress interval as the grain size increases.Key words: sand, grain crushing, grain size, high stress, compression.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".