An Experimental Study on Effect of Boundary Condition on Particle Damage in Shear Zone of Crushed Sand
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Various factors influence particle breakage in the shear zone of silica sands, including particle shape characteristics, loading path, shear displacement, normal load, initial density, and boundary conditions. The present study focuses on particle breakage occurring in the shear zone of a crushed silica sand under shear loading. Several ring shear tests were conducted to measure shear stress‐displacement response of a sand. Grain‐size distribution curves of the original sand (prior to shearing) and the sheared sand from the shear zone are then compared. The mechanism of particle breakage is determined by a thorough examination of particle damage under “constant normal load” and “constant volume” tests, considering both loose and dense samples. The results show that void ratio is the dominant factor in particle breakage. On the other hand, it is observed that particle breakage resulting from particle shape properties accrues within the initial loading stages. It is observed that the boundary condition also affects the magnitude of particle breakage; that is, particle damage under “constant normal load” boundary condition is found to be significantly higher than that under “constant volume” condition for the same initial normal stress and void ratio.
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".