Undrained shear behaviour of sands subjected to large shear displacement and estimation of excess pore-pressure generation from drained ring shear tests
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Undrained shear behaviour of fine silica and weathered granitic sand subjected to large shear displacement is examined. Parallel experiments using ring shear and the triaxial compression tests on soil specimens through a wide range of initial void ratios were conducted to investigate undrained shear strength as the key factor in the flow-like motion of landslides. The steady-state undrained shear strengths achieved in ring shear tests were, in general, smaller than those in the triaxial compression tests, probably because of the excess pore-pressure generation by grain crushing within the shear zone that occurred in ring shear. Very low steady-state shear strengths were achieved, however, in triaxial compression tests on the dense silica sand in which well-defined shear surfaces developed in the cylindrical specimens. In these triaxial compression tests, shear deformation must have been concentrated on these surfaces to generate excess pore pressure similar to that found in ring shear tests. An attempt was made to estimate excess pore pressure generated in undrained ring shear tests using the results of drained ring shear tests. The equivalent normal stress calculated as the ratio of volumetric strain in the drained test to the coefficient of volume change was introduced as a parameter for the estimation of excess pore-pressure generation for the large shear displacement that is usually found in landslides. Equivalent normal stress from drained tests was almost the same as the generated excess pore pressure in undrained tests with up to 1 m of shear displacement, at which the steady state was reached.Key words: undrained shear strength, excess pore pressure, equivalent normal stress, ring shear test, triaxial compression test, liquefaction.
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 | 0.001 | 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".