Experimental assessment of the response of sands under shear–volume coupled deformation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An experimental study of the behaviour of an alluvial sand under different strain increment paths representing shear–volume coupled deformation is presented. Both pore pressure and pore volume change simultaneously in these tests. Linear strain paths with different levels of limiting volumetric strain and nonlinear strain paths that simulate different pore pressure boundary conditions were applied to the soil specimen in the laboratory. The strain paths imposed included both expansive and contractive volumetric deformation. Nonuniform excess pore pressures generated during earthquakes (on account of the heterogeneity in natural soils) often lead to such deformation in situ following the end of strong shaking. The shear strength of the soil could decrease significantly when the pore pressure boundary conditions result in volume inflow that leads to a considerable reduction of the effective confining stress. The rate of volume inflow plays a significant role on the resulting stress–strain and pore pressure responses. Both the peak and the minimum shear strength mobilized during the test were significantly dependent on the strain path. The effective stress ratio at the instant of peak pore pressure is independent of the strain path followed, and it is equal to the effective stress ratio noted at the instant of phase transformation in undrained tests.
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".