MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2122452687 · doi:10.1139/t11-052

Strength mobilization in clays and silts

2011· article· en· W2122452687 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
P.J. Vardanega, M. D. Bolton

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil Mechanics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCambridge TrustCambridge Commonwealth Trust
KeywordsGeotechnical engineeringGeologyMobilizationPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A large database of 115 triaxial, direct simple shear, and cyclic tests on 19 clays and silts is presented and analysed to develop an empirical framework for the prediction of the mobilization of the undrained shear strength, cu, of natural clays tested from an initially isotropic state of stress. The strain at half the peak undrained strength (γM=2) is used to normalize the shear strain data between mobilized strengths of 0.2cu and 0.8cu. A power law with an exponent of 0.6 is found to describe all the normalized data within a strain factor of 1.75 when a representative sample provides a value for γM=2. Multi-linear regression analysis shows that γM=2 is a function of cu, plasticity index Ip, and initial mean effective stress p′0. Of the 97 stress-strain curves for which cu, Ip, and p′0 were available, the observed values of γM=2 fell within a factor of three of the regression; this additional uncertainty should be acknowledged if a designer wished to limit immediate foundation settlements on the basis of an undrained strength profile and the plasticity index of the clay. The influence of stress history is also discussed. The application of these stress-strain relations to serviceability design calculations is portrayed through a worked example. The implications for geotechnical decision-making and codes of practice are considered.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.208
Threshold uncertainty score0.540

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.170
Teacher spread0.158 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations78
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Geotechnical JournalSame topicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil MechanicsFrench-language works237,207