Tensile response and fracturing process in moderate- and high-plasticity clays
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sinkholes in clay soils can be considered as the collapse of a soil layer previously bridging a void. Here, flexural deformation in the clay drives the formation of tensile cracks from the lowest surface of the layer and the consequent soil collapse is from crack propagation. Considering a simplified model of the sinkhole geometry, this paper aims to describe the tensile and fracture behaviour of clay soils with different plasticity indices. Speswhite kaolin, London, and Durham clays were tested using direct tensile and bending tests. Moderate- and high-plasticity clays showed a nonlinear fracture response with increasing moisture content, while low-plasticity clays demonstrated a linear response. Bending tests confirmed the importance of the moisture content while the plasticity index confirmed the difference in ductile or fragile collapse for fracture propagation. To assess the results, elasto-plastic fracture mechanics (EPFM) theory was applied to clays with appropriate modifications. The analysis demonstrated that EPFM theory provides a good baseline for predicting tensile fracture behaviour in clay soils, which can be extended in future research.
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".