Principal stress rotation as cause of cyclic mobility
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Principal stress rotation (PSR) has been known to act as ‘loading’ on soils since the seminal work of Arthur et al. some 30 years ago, using the directional shear cell. However, the key insight – reflected in the titles of the original papers – that soils yield under constant stress invariants if the principal stresses rotate, has been consistently neglected in virtually all constitutive models of soil as well as in all procedures/methods of geotechnical engineering practice. This neglect is a pity, as a rather simple softening (annealing) of yield surface size, proportional to the rotation of principal stress, captures much of soil behaviour that is measured in the cyclic simple shear test – an idealisation demonstrated in this paper using a minimal extension of the generalised critical state model NorSand (although the idealised effect of PSR could be implemented in any comparable model as the ideas are general). The extended model captures much of the behaviour encountered in the large body of test data on Fraser River sand. Equally, the implementation of PSR annealing makes clear that there is a further loading process for soil: it is suggested that the rotation of the strain increment direction is the missing additional factor. The model is provided as a downloadable, open-source code Excel/VBA program as a supplement to this paper.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".