Monotonic and cyclic behaviour of root-reinforced sand
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Plant roots are known to provide mechanical reinforcement to soils upon shearing and seismic loading. However, the effects of different stress paths on root reinforcement remain unclear. Moreover, whether and how roots provide resistance to soil liquefaction upon cyclic loading have rarely been studied. The objective of this study is to conduct a series of undrained triaxial tests to investigate the monotonic and cyclic behaviour of rooted sand. Roots of vetiver grass (Chrysopogon zizanioides L.), which has been advocated for use in shallow slope stabilisation purposes, were used for testing. The root diameters ranged between 0.3 and 1.5 mm, while the root volume ratios (RVRs) were 0.23%, 0.45%, and 0.67%. It was discovered that the root reinforcement effect was anisotropic and path-dependent. Along the extension path, when the major principal stress was perpendicular to the predominant root orientation, the root-induced increase in soil friction angle was approximately 10°. This increase was much greater than that along the compression path, where the change was minimal. The presence of roots prevented the limited flow failure at some RVRs and cyclic stress ratios (CSRs) (which occurred in the unreinforced sand) and the failure mode of the root-reinforced soil switched to cyclic mobility. The liquefaction resistance was improved with an increase in root volume, and this improvement was more remarkable at higher CSRs.
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".