MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3109986566 · doi:10.1139/cgj-2020-0312

Model for predicting the variation of shear stress in unsaturated soils during strain-softening

2020· article· en· W3109986566 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Xiuhan Yang, Sai K. Vanapalli

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil Mechanics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaChina Scholarship CouncilUniversity of Ottawa
KeywordsGeotechnical engineeringSoil waterShear stressGeologySofteningDeformation (meteorology)Stress pathStrain hardening exponentHardening (computing)Stress (linguistics)Stress–strain curveShear (geology)Materials scienceSoil scienceComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Several of the geotechnical structures constructed with unsaturated soils undergo a large deformation prior to reaching failure conditions (e.g., progressive failure of a soil slope). During this process, the shear stress in soils typically increases initially and then reduces with an increase in the shear strain. The prediction of the stress–strain relationship is critical for reasonable interpretation of the mechanical behavior of those geo-structures that undergo large deformation. This paper introduces a model based on the disturbed state concept (DSC) to predict the variation of shear stress in unsaturated soils during the strain-softening process under consolidated drained triaxial compression condition. In this model, the apparent stress–strain relationship is formulated as a weighted average of a hyperbolic hardening response extending the pre-peak state stress–strain curve and a linear response extending the critical state stress–strain curve with an assumed disturbance function as the weight. The prediction procedure is described in detail and the proposed model is validated using several sets of published data on unsaturated soils varying from coarse- to fine-grained soils. Finally, a comprehensive error analysis is undertaken based on an index of agreement approach.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.193
Teacher spread0.178 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Geotechnical JournalSame topicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil MechanicsFrench-language works237,207