Fundamentals of desiccation cracking of fine-grained soils: experimental characterisation and mechanisms identification
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents the results of a comprehensive experimental study of the desiccation of fine-grained soils. Air drying of initially saturated soil slabs in controlled conditions is investigated by performing three kinds of tests: free desiccation tests, constrained desiccation tests (prevented shrinkage), and crack pattern tests. Strains, suction, water content, and crack geometry are investigated. Results reveal that unconstrained drying exhibits two stages: a domain with large, mostly irrecoverable deformations and degree of saturation close to 100%, followed by a domain with lower deformations at a decreasing degree of saturation. Homogeneous soil macroscopic cracking is possible only in the presence of boundary constraints and (or) moisture gradients, inducing the build-up of tensile stresses. Results also show that, for the initially saturated remoulded soils tested here, in the whole sample and near a crack initiation point, the degree of saturation remains very close to 100% until cracking, while cracking onset, the air-entry suction, and the shrinkage limit are close to each other. Cavitation nuclei and the formation of an irregular drying front at cracking initiation are commented upon in light of this observation. Finally, results suggest that the crack pattern geometry is the result of energy redistribution. A quantification of the process is proposed.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".