Influence of loading path on the undrained behaviour of a medium loose sand
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The results of an experimental programme aimed at studying the undrained behaviour of Hostun sand are presented in this paper. Specific conditions concerning the initial relative density (medium loose arrangements) and the loading paths (compression and extension under monotonic and cyclic loadings) were considered in the test programme. Monotonic tests carried out in both drained and undrained conditions show a significant difference in behaviour between compression and extension. It is observed that, in undrained conditions, Hostun sand is weaker in extension than in compression. In compression, the material is stable (dilatant) and the phase-transformation state controls the mechanical behaviour. In extension, the experimental results show an unstable behaviour (contractant), with monotonic, liquefaction-induced instability in undrained conditions. The results of cyclic tests, carried out with one- and two-way stress reversals, show a good correlation with the results of monotonic tests. The loading path strongly influences the undrained mechanical behaviour of the sand, mainly by inducing liquefaction in extension. This situation suggests that differences in soil fabric, caused by the sample preparation technique (air pluviation), can influence the sand behaviour by inducing a significant contraction in extension. By further analysing the cyclic results, it is shown that, during unloading, the stress paths reflect the transverse isotropy (orthotropy) of the sand, with stiffer elastic characteristics in the vertical direction than in the horizontal direction.Key words: liquefaction, cyclic mobility, sands, triaxial test, anisotropy, loading path.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".