MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2167778810 · doi:10.5614/jts.2003.10.4.1

Bonding at Particle Contacts

2010· article· en· W2167778810 on OpenAlexaffabout
Suyud Rusai Karyasuparta

Bibliographic record

VenueJurnal Teknik Sipil · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil Stabilization
Canadian institutionsEncana (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCohesion (chemistry)CementMaterials scienceDimensionless quantityGeotechnical engineeringComposite materialEngineeringPhysicsMechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This investigation deals with the behavior of cohesive bonding at particle contacts in soil. Direct measurement of cohesive strength at sliding contacts between particles of soil has not been accomplished. An indirect method is used in this study to estimate average contact cohesion from measurement of total strength of soil specimens. Two types of materials were tested; Ottawa sand and crushed quartz, with two different relative densities, 25 and 75 percents; each material was tested with four different cement contents, 0, 2, 4, and 6 percents of cement by weight. Adding cement was to create controlled cohesion to the contacts between particles. The results of 118 Consolidated Drained Triaxial compression tests on sand-cement specimens were analyzed, and the model by Hardin (1985) was used to isolate cohesive and frictional bonding in cohesive materials. This model considers two basic mechanism of strength of soils, by considering bonding at particle contacts and kinematics of particle movement within an element of deforming soil. The result shows that the dimensionless contact cohesion is linearly related to cement content for sand with relative density 25 percent, and is nonlinear for sand with relative density 75 percent. Dimensionless contact cohesion decreases with increasing relative density for cement content 2 and 4 percents, but it increases with increasing relative density for 6 percent cement content. Dimensionless contact cohesion is larger in rounded material compared with in angular material.Abstrak. Penelitian ini adalah mengenai perilaku dari ikatan kohesif pada kontak antar butir tanah. Pengukuran langsung kohesi pada bidang geser kontak antara butir-butir tanah, belum pernah dilakukan. Suatu cara tidak langsung dipakai dalam studi ini, untuk memprakirakan kohesi kontak (pada bidang geser antara 2 butir) ratarata, dari pengukuran tegangan-tegangan total pada benda uji tanah. Dua jenis material pasir diuji; yaitu pasir Ottawa dan crushed quatz (quartz tumbuk), dengan 2 nilai relative density yaitu 25% dan 75%; tiap material diuji dengan 4 kadar semen yang berbeda yaitu 0%, 2%, 4% dan 6% berat semen. Penambahan semen pada pasir tersebut, adalah untuk menciptakan kohesi yang dapat diatur, pada bidang kontak. Hasil uji Consolidated Drained Tiaxial compression pada 118 benda uji pasir bersemen diatas, dianalisis, dan sebuah model dari Hardin (1985), dipakai untuk mengisolasi ikatan kohesi dan ikatan geser pada material kohesif. Model tersebut memperhatikan dua mekanisme dasar dari kekuatan tanah, dengan memperhatikan ikatan pada kontak antara butir dan kinematik dari pergerakan partikel dalam sebuah elemen dari tanah yang berdeformasi. Hasilnya memperlihatkan bahwa kohesi kontak tak berdimensi berhubungan linier terhadap kadar semen, untuk pasir dengan relative density 25%, dan tidak linier untuk pasir dengan relative density 75%. Kohesi kontak tak berdimensi berkurang dengan bertambahnya relative density, untuk kadar semen 2 dan 4%, tetapi bertambah besar dengan naiknya relative density, untuk kadar semen 6%. Kontak kohesi tak berdimensi lebih besar pada pasir yang rounded dibanding dengan pada pasir yang angular. Wurbs, Ralph A., 1996, "Modeling & Analysis of Reservoir System Operations", PTR Prentice Hall.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.690
Threshold uncertainty score0.407

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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.199
Teacher spread0.192 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJurnal Teknik SipilSame topicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil StabilizationFrench-language works237,207