Effect of temperature on the mechanical properties of two polymeric geogrid materials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Understanding the tensile behavior of geosynthetic reinforcement materials at different temperatures is essential for the design of reinforced soil structures in seasonally cold regions. This study describes a series of tensile tests performed on two polypropylene geogrid materials, namely a biaxial geogrid and a geogrid composite. A total of 84 tests were performed in an environmental chamber with temperatures as low as −30°C and as high as +40°C. The response of each material is examined over the range of investigated temperatures to evaluate the effect of temperature changes on the tensile strength of the two geogrid materials. The response of the biaxial geogrid is found to be sensitive to temperature variations, with samples tested at low temperatures exhibiting brittle behavior characterized by high rupture strength and small ultimate strain while samples tested at elevated temperatures displayed ductile behavior with large elongation at failure and comparatively small rupture strength. A similar response was found for the geogrid composite, however, the rupture strength seemed to be less sensitive to temperature changes. The modes of failure observed at each temperature are examined based on photographic evidence taken during the experiments.
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) | 0.002 | 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".