Thermal effects on mechanical behaviour of soil–structure interface
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mechanical behaviour of the soil–structure interface plays a major role in the shear characteristics and bearing capacity of foundations. In thermoactive structures, due to nonisothermal conditions, the interface behaviour becomes more complex. The objective of this study is to investigate the effects of temperature variations on the mechanical behaviour of soils and the soil–structure interface. Constant normal load (CNL) and constant normal stiffness (CNS) tests were performed on the soil and soil–structure interface in a direct shear device at temperatures of 5, 22, and 60 °C. Fontainebleau sand and kaolin clay were used as proxies for sandy and clayey soils. The sandy soil was prepared in a dense state and the clayey soil was prepared in a normally consolidated state. Results show that the applied thermal variations have a negligible effect on the shear strength of the sand and sand–structure interface under CNL and CNS conditions, and the soil and soil–structure interface behaviour could be considered thermally independent. In clay samples, an increase in the temperature increased the cohesion and consequently the shear strength, due to thermal contraction during heating. The temperature rise had less impact on the shear strength in the case of the clay–structure interface than in the clay samples. The adhesion of the clay–structure interface is less than the cohesion of the clay samples.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".