Detailed amount of particle breakage in nonuniformly graded sands under one-dimensional compression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The coexistence of broken and unbroken grains in each size range can disturb the assessment of actual amount of particle breakage. In this study, a series of one-dimensional compression tests were carried out on three kinds of coral sands and a silica sand to clarify the detailed amount of particle breakage for nonuniformly graded sands. Before the compression tests, both coral and silica sand assemblies were divided into different grain-size groups and dyed in different colors, then mixed as nonuniformly graded packings. After the compression, grains of different color in each size range were discerned quantitatively by implementing particle images segmentation on images of grains. Results show that the extent of particle breakage was found to be larger than the change in relative mass percentage in most size ranges, and the new “absolute particle breakage” w d for each size range satisfied linear relationships with the logarithmic value of compression pressure. Compared with silica sand, coral sand has weaker abrasion under high pressure due to the strong interlock among grains. New breakage indexes of sand samples, based on detailed particle breakage, are proposed. The detailed particle breakage could be useful for proposing a breakage-dependent constitutive model of crushable granular soils.
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 | 0.001 | 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".