Strength behavior of plain cement concrete subjected to true triaxial compression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
True triaxial compression test was conducted on 100 mm × 100 mm × 100 mm cubical sample of plain cement concrete using the true triaxial testing machine. A total of 30 tests were conducted on two concrete mixes having characteristic strengths of 24.39 MPa and 34.67 MPa. The minor and intermediate principal stresses were varied from 2.5 MPa to 10 MPa and 2.5 MPa to 30 MPa respectively. The samples were loaded until failure under the stress rate of 1 MPa/min. The failure mode and direction of fracture planes were observed carefully. It was observed that the ratio of intermediate and minor principal stress had an incremental effect on the strength of the concrete. The results obtained from our experimental study as well as the true triaxial compression test data published in literature has been used to conduct a quantitative evaluation of three commonly used failure criteria presented for the concrete. The three failure criteria considered are Drucker-Prager (DP) criterion, Bresler-Pester (BP) criterion, and Hsieh-Ting-Chen (HTC) criterion. It was observed that for the normal strength concrete, the HTC criterion predicts the strength with least error while for the high strength concrete, the DP criterion gives better predictions. Overall the DP and BP criteria underestimate the strength while the HTC criterion overestimates.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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".