Consolidated drained behaviour of PVA fibre reinforced cemented Toyoura Sand
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, a series of consolidated drained (CID) compression tests were performed On unreinforced and reinforced cemented Toyoura sand specimens. Specimens were cured for 3, 7, 14, 28, 56 days, with cement contents of 0–3% (dry weight), and different Polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) fibre contents of 0, 0.5, 1, 2, and 3% (weight ratio). Samples were prepared to a target dry density value (e.g. ρd = 1.489 g/cm3) of Toyoura sand using under-compaction moist tamping technique with 10% water content by dry weight of soil. Triaxial compression tests (CID) were carried out at a confining pressure of 100 kPa. The monotonic stress–strain, stiffness, volumetric change behaviour, dilatancy angle, peak strength, and residual strength and brittleness index of the samples were investigated in greater detail. Results show that peak strength increases due to increase in curing duration by approximately 50–700%, and 0–300% in residual strength at 30% axial strain, compared to Toyoura sand. For reinforced cemented specimens there is an increase in volumetric strain with increasing curing duration or in other words, the rate of dilation increases with the increase in curing period. The dilatancy behaviour increases due to the addition of fibres and cement, this dilative behaviour has been attributed to cemented particles forming highly interlocked clusters. Brittleness of the cemented specimens reinforced with 0.5%-1% fibres have been supressed significantly compared to the higher concentrations of fibre (2–3%). Hence, it shows that there might be a threshold fibre concentration range (0.5%-1%), where fibres are considered to be the most effective and beyond this concentration, fibre causes further adverse effects.
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) | 0.001 | 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".