Tensile strength of sands treated with microbially induced carbonate precipitation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
During large earthquake events where bending moments within soil cements are induced, the tensile strength of cemented soil may govern the deformational behavior of improved ground. Several studies have been conducted to assess the tensile strength of artificially cemented sands that use Portland cement or gypsum; however, the tensile strength of microbially induced carbonate precipitation (MICP)-treated sands with various particle sizes measured through direct tension tests has not been evaluated. MICP is a biomediated improvement technique that binds soil particles through carbonate precipitation. In this study, the tensile strength of nine specimens were measured by conducting direct tension tests. Three types of sand (coarse, medium, and fine) were cemented to reach a heavy level of cementation (e.g., shear wave velocity of ∼900 m/s or higher). The results show that the tensile strength varies between 210 and 710 kPa depending on sand type and mass of carbonate. Unconfined compressive strength (UCS) tests were performed for each sand type to assess the ratio between tensile strength and UCS in MICP-treated sands. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) images and surface energy measurements were used to determine the predominant failure mode at particle contacts under tensile loading condition.
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".