On the role of geofoam density on the interface shear behavior of composite geosystems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Expanded polystyrene (EPS) geofoam has been increasingly used in geotechnical engineering applications to replace conventional backfill material or to reduce earth pressure on retaining and buried structures. In most of these applications, geofoam blocks are installed in direct contact with different construction material (soil, concrete, steel, wood, etc.). This results in a composite system that is subjected to loading in both the normal and shear directions. Therefore, successful analysis and design of these composite structures require a detailed knowledge of interface strength characteristics of geofoam under a combination of normal and shear stresses. In the current research, an attempt has been made to study the interface shear characteristics of geofoam with selected materials, including concrete, wood and steel. Three different geofoam densities namely, 15, 22 and 39 kg/m 3 were used in this study. A series of direct shear tests (DST) was conducted with a shear box of dimension 100 mm × 100 mm × 50 mm under three different normal stresses 18, 36 and 54 kPa. Test results revealed that geofoam density and applied normal stress have significant effects on the vertical compression and interface strength properties (i.e. adhesion and friction angle) of the investigated geosystem. Surface roughness was found to play a significant role in the shear resistance at the contact. Geofoam–concrete interface showed maximum strength as compared to wood and steel materials. Care should be exercised when placing geofoam against steel or wood surfaces as the mobilized friction angle is generally small and sliding may develop depending on the applied normal stress level.
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".