MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2625087863 · doi:10.1139/cgj-2016-0443

Shear bands in undrained plane strain compression of Norwegian quick clays

2017· article· en· W2625087863 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Vikas Thakur, Steinar Nordal, Gioacchino Viggiani, P. Charrier

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil Mechanics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersStatens vegvesen
KeywordsGeotechnical engineeringDigital image correlationPore water pressureShear (geology)GeologyMaterials scienceDirect shear testComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This work presents the results of plane strain tests carried out at the Laboratoire 3SR Grenoble (France) on undisturbed samples of very sensitive Norwegian soft clay. Discussion of the results focuses on the observed failure mechanisms and zones of localized deformation. The tested clay is defined as quick clay because it liquefies completely upon remolding. Thus, careful handling was necessary, and original procedures were developed to place samples in the plane strain testing device with minimum disturbance. Results show that excess pore-water pressure had developed during shear loading and shear strength was lost after the peak, which is a typical phenomenon in sensitive soils. The sample was held between two glass plates to enable visual tracking of the deformations. A digital image correlation analysis revealed a complex pattern of emerging shear bands, with one or two bands dominating and providing a final failure mechanism. Two local pore-water pressure transducers were attached to the sample boundary and showed differences in local excess pore-water pressure. It is suggested that excess pore-water pressure depends on the distance from the transducers to the zones of concentrated shear strains.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.079
Threshold uncertainty score0.801

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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.202 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations37
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Geotechnical JournalSame topicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil MechanicsFrench-language works237,207