Effect of grain shape and angularity on the undrained response of fine sands
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this paper is to discuss the effect of grain shape and angularity on the undrained behaviour of sands. Four fine to medium (D50= 0.15–0.29 mm) and uniform sands were examined. These sands have similar and (or) identical grading curves, but differ with respect to the angularity of their grains. Under the electron scanning microscope two sands have rounded grains and the other two have subangular to angular grains. For sands with rounded grains, evidence of undrained behaviour undergoing systematic weakening (shear stress reduction after a transient peak deviator stress) is provided by torsional hollow cylinder tests. However, sands with the same grading curve and void ratio, but angular grains, show stable response with a continuous increase in strength after a transient peak. A small variation in the sand gradation, i.e., D50= 0.22 ± 0.07 mm, does not appear to alter the pattern of undrained response described earlier, with the angular sand (D50= 0.15) exhibiting stable response to shear and the rounded sands (D50= 0.22 and 0.29) having unstable response to shear. The stiffness characteristics of the sands are also presented. Triaxial compression tests were performed to confirm the pattern of response observed under torsional testing.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".