Analysis of sand – woven geotextile interface shear behavior using discrete element method (DEM)
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The interaction between soil and geotextile is essential for the performance of reinforced soil. This study reveals the microscopic mechanism of interface shear between sand and geotextile based on the discrete element method (DEM). The surface characteristics of geotextile are simulated by overlapped particles. The micromechanical parameters of sand, geotextile, and interface are calibrated effectively using laboratory test results. Three types of shear tests on the sand–geotextile interface are simulated; namely, interface direct shear test (IDST), double-sided interface shear test (D_IST), and interface direct shear test with periodic boundary (PBST). For IDST, the results show that the thickness of shear band is 2.4∼3.0 times the average particle diameter (D 50 ); the contact force, percentage of sliding contact, and contact normal anisotropy inside the shear band are larger than those outside the shear band, whereas the coordination number is smaller inside the shear band. The mechanical response of D_IST is similar to that of IDST. However, D_IST has a shear band thickness of 3.0D 50 , and greater coordination number, percentage of sliding contact, and contact normal anisotropy. The results of PBST indicate that the peak stress and the shear band no longer appear without boundary constraint and the contact distribution is uniform.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it