Effect of Specimen Preparation on Volumetric Behavior of Sands under Cyclic Multidirectional Shear
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
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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