Yield strength ratios, critical strength ratios, and brittleness of sandy soils from laboratory tests
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, we performed 26 undrained triaxial compression and 32 constant-volume ring shear tests on two clean sands and one silty sand. We then used these results to evaluate the critical states, and shear strength ratios mobilized at yield and at critical state. We obtained yield strength ratios that ranged from 0.16 to 0.32 and from 0.20 to 0.35 in triaxial compression and ring shear, respectively. Critical strength ratios mobilized prior to particle damage ranged from 0.01 to 0.26 in triaxial compression and from 0.04 to 0.22 in ring shear. Particle damage and shear displacement increased the slopes of the critical-state lines during ring shear testing, and consequently the critical strength ratios incorporating particle damage decreased from 0.02 to 0.12. In addition, specimen brittleness (before particle damage) increases with initial void ratio and state parameter and is affected by initial fabric and particle shape. However, particle damage and crushing considerably increases sand brittleness, making it essentially independent of initial void ratio. A unique relation is found between sand brittleness and critical strength ratio independent of sand type, mode of shear, fabric, and particle damage, which indicates an upper bound critical strength ratio of about 0.3 for mildly contractive sands.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".