Testing and modelling total suction effects on compressibility and creep of crushable granular material
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent works have shown that delayed events of particle crushing are partially responsible of creep deformation in granular materials, and that Stress Corrosion Cracking promoted by high humidity within particles is the source of this mechanism. A number of experimental studies have focused on creep behaviour of water saturated samples and wetting-deformation after soaking dry material. However, there are few evidences of the effect of varying total suction in time-dependent deformation of partially saturated crushable material, and this mechanism have been rarely considered in constitutive models. The aims of this paper are to present experimental evidence of the effect of total suction on compressibility and creep of sandy sized samples from crushed rock, and to propose a simple one-dimensional elasto-plastic modelling approach based on the enhancement of an existing model. Oedometric compression tests at different total suctions are presented. The results show that compressibility and creep strains increase with both stress and humidity. The model proposed uses a time-dependent hardening law coupling suction with the amount of particle breakage. Based on preliminary calibrations, the model captures the effect of suction and time-dependent behaviour over a large range of total suction.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".