Influence of Specimen Size in Engineering Practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A combined laboratory experimental and numerical analysis is presented to investigate the influence of specimen size and scale effect on engineering analysis and design. Laboratory triaxial compression and direct shear tests show that the size of the specimen has a significant influence on the stress-strain behavior of sands with larger specimens mobilizing smaller shear strengths. Shear strengths measured in laboratory direct shear tests are incorporated in FEM and slope-stability analyses to evaluate and compare the shear stress distribution and deformational behavior of a slope case study. The numerical analyses are conducted using ABAQUS and Mohr-Coulomb failure criteria. The performance of the slope under load application due to staged highway embankment construction is also evaluated. The analyses results show that the shear stresses and performance of slope and highway embankment are influenced considerably by the size of the triaxial specimens. This would have significant implications on engineering design and the choice of a representative sample size. To apply the shear strengths in design, it is suggested to employ larger specimen sizes to achieve the critical state strengths of the soil and better representation of field deformations.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".