MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Critical-State Shear Strength and Pore Pressure of Granular Materials

2021· article· en· W3203107830 on OpenAlexaff
Sergio Esteban Rosales Garzón, Adel Hanna

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Geomechanics · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil Mechanics
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDilatantAngle of reposeGeotechnical engineeringShearing (physics)Inclined planeGranular materialPorosityMaterials scienceFriction anglePlane stressShear (geology)MechanicsGeologyComposite materialStructural engineeringEngineeringFinite element methodPhysicsMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The plane-strain critical-state friction angle is an important soil parameter in the design of geotechnical projects. The static angle of repose, which is the same as the plane-strain critical-state friction angle for normally consolidated cohesionless soil, was measured in the laboratory in this investigation. The experimental results were used to validate the relationship between the static angle of repose and the interparticle sliding friction. This relationship accounts for the dilatancy developed in the plane-strain critical state and its corresponding pore pressure coefficient at constant volume. In order to develop this relationship, the law of conservation of energy and the limit-equilibrium analysis were employed in a bidimensional plane-strain micromechanical model for the granular media in the critical state. The framework described in this paper accounts for the evolution of shearing resistance with porosity and establishes theoretical porosity thresholds for the contractive, dilative, and collapsible behavior. The results produced by the theory developed herein compared well with the present experimental results and those available in the literature.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.240
Threshold uncertainty score0.445

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.217 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations5
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of GeomechanicsSame topicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil MechanicsFrench-language works237,207