An Experimental Study on Mechanical Behavior of a Calcite Cemented Gravelly Sand
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In the study presented herein, a simple method for laboratory calcite cementation of a reconstituted gravelly sand was presented. This method was used to prepare cemented gravelly sand specimens, which have similar natural characteristics to alluvial deposit of the city of Tehran. The formation and distribution of calcite bonds, as well as the effectiveness of the presented calcite cementation method in increasing interparticle cohesion, as observed in weakly to moderately cemented soil in Tehran, were evaluated by means of chemical analysis, X-ray diffraction technique, and unconfined compressive strength tests. The cementation technique was used to prepare triaxial specimens with calcite contents ranging from 1.5 to 6 %. Then, a series of monotonic and cyclic undrained triaxial tests was performed to characterize the behavior of calcite-cemented gravelly sand with different calcite contents under different loading conditions. In comparison with the specimens with zero calcite content, the cemented specimens exhibited a distinctly different behavior in terms of static stiffness and strength, cyclic pore pressure generation, and cyclic strength. Results of the monotonic triaxial tests indicated an increased shear strength with an increase in calcite content and confining pressure in the tested soil. Because of the presence of interparticle cohesion, cemented soils behaved less compressive during cyclic loading, and accordingly, the rate of positive pore pressure generation in these specimens was lower during loading with smaller induced plastic deformations.
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 | 0.000 | 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".