Effect of Specimen Preparation on Volumetric Behavior of Sands under Cyclic Multidirectional Shear
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Laboratory specimen preparation methods can significantly influence the dynamic shear-induced volumetric response of sands. In this study, a medium dense to very dense Ottawa sand (relative density, DR = ∼60–95 %) was systematically tested using a multidirectional cyclic direct simple shear device to evaluate the influence of specimen preparation on drained cyclic volumetric strain. Both unidirectional and bidirectional cyclic loads were applied to specimens created using four preparation techniques: dry funnel deposition, dry soil raining, dry funnel deposition followed by table vibrations, and dry funnel deposition followed by cyclic shearing. The results indicate that as DR increases, the effect of specimen preparation on volumetric strain decreases. Specifically, the results illustrate that volumetric strain of medium dense sand (DR = 57–74 %) is affected by specimen preparation, which is consistent with the literature. In contrast, dense to very dense specimens (DR > 80 %) exhibited comparable volumetric strain independent of the specimen preparation method. This observation is consistent for both unidirectional and bidirectional cyclic loading.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".