MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3133039662 · doi:10.3390/buildings11020076

Effect of the Particle Size on TDA Shear Strength Parameters in Triaxial Tests

2021· article· en· W3133039662 on OpenAlexafffund
Hany El Naggar, Khaled Zahran

Bibliographic record

VenueBuildings · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil Stabilization
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsParticle sizeMaterials scienceStiffnessCohesion (chemistry)ScrapGeotechnical engineeringShear strength (soil)Composite materialShear modulusStructural engineeringEnvironmental scienceGeologyEngineeringMetallurgySoil sciencePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Tire recycling and reuse in North America and worldwide have increased considerably, intending to reduce the harmful effects of scrap tires on the environment. Accordingly, the use of tire derived aggregates (TDA) as backfill material in civil engineering applications is on the rise at an unprecedented rate. However, to use TDA in the construction industry, its strength and stiffness parameters properties must be evaluated. One key factor that is known to influence the strength and stiffness of backfill material is the particle size of the used material. Hence, in this paper, a series of large-scale triaxial tests on five TDA samples with different maximum particle size, Dmax, of 19.05, 25.4, 38.1, 50.8 and 76.2 mm were conducted to investigate the effect of the particle size on the obtained results. The tests were done under consolidated drained conditions using three confining pressures of 50, 100, and 200 kPa. The results showed that the shear strength of TDA increase by increasing the maximum particle size while the cohesion did not show a specific trend. Moreover, the samples exhibited an increase in the secant elastic modulus by increasing the particle size.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.814
Threshold uncertainty score0.272

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.204 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations12
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBuildingsSame topicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil StabilizationFrench-language works237,207