Compression and shear strength characteristics of compacted loess at high suctions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Compression and shear behavior of a loosely compacted loess is investigated via two series of saturated and unsaturated direct shear tests. The vapor transfer mechanism is used to modify a shear box device for control of suction at high range. In spite of significant volumetric strain upon wetting (up to 14%), suction-induced volumetric shrinkage is less than 2% for all suction levels considered because of the as-compacted moisture content at the dry side of the optimum value. During shearing, all unsaturated tests dried to high suctions indicate a strain-softening mode of failure associated with noticeable dilation. There is a continuous increase in peak strength with suction but at a reduced rate, which cannot be captured by the improved Bishop’s effective stress model, as it underestimates the contribution of high suctions by approaching zero degree of saturation. Unsaturated tests at high suctions also show an increased rate of dilation with suction for both values of net stress, which cannot be predicted well by the classical stress–dilatancy models. It is shown that for suction values beyond 8 MPa, dilation angle increases by 2° and 6° per 100 MPa increase of suction under net stress of 50 and 200 kPa, respectively.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".