Consolidated drained (CID) behavior of fibre reinforced cemented Toyoura sand in triaxial loading conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The effects of fibre (0–3 %) and cement (0–3 %) additives, on Toyoura sand were examined under consolidated drained compression and extension loading conditions. All samples were prepared to a target dry density value (e.g., $${\rho }_{d}$$ ρ d = 1.489 g/cm3) of Toyoura sand using under-compaction moist tamping technique. In compression, the unreinforced specimens exhibited a behavior of medium dense sand and reached a peak deviator stress (qp) at approximately 4 % axial strain ( $${\epsilon }_{a}$$ ϵ a ) for the varying mean effective stresses, pʹ (i.e. 50–400 kPa). The peak drained strength increases in fibre reinforced cemented specimens were found to be up to 132 % (lower effective stresses) and 243 % (higher effective stresses), while, the drained strength increases at critical state for the fibre reinforced cemented specimens were found to be up to 105 % (lower effective stresses) and 245 % (higher effective stresses). Overall, the fibre and cement additives increased the stiffness, peak and strength at critical state of pure Toyoura sand but were found to be least effective in extension loading. Moreover, the stress ratio, peak and critical state stress ratios increase with the addition of fibres and cement. The secant modulus shows limited increases for the fibre reinforced specimens. However, a significant improvement in the secant modulus is observed for the fibre reinforced cemented specimens. For both unreinforced and reinforced specimens there is a decrease in volumetric strain with greater effective stresses or in other words, the rate of dilation decreases with increases in effective stresses. The fibre and cement additives also increased the strength parameters (frictional angle, cohesion), dilatancy angle, slope of the critical state line, and decreased the state parameter of pure Toyoura sand.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".