A framework for constructing elasto‐plastic constitutive models for frozen and unfrozen soils
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The need for unified constitutive models for frozen and unfrozen soils in simulating frost heave and thaw consolidation has been recognized. However, a reliable and easy‐to‐implement model is not yet available. This paper extends the one‐dimensional elasto‐plastic model proposed by Yu et al. to solve multi‐dimensional problems. In the extended model, total and effective stresses are taken as the stress variables for frozen and unfrozen soils, respectively. A critical‐state‐based mode, Clay And Sand Model (CASM), is employed for soil at unfrozen states. The emphasis is placed on how a basic constitutive model for unfrozen soils is extended to describe the elasto‐plastic behavior for both unfrozen and frozen soils in two steps: (1) extension of the constitutive model from unfrozen to frozen soils by considering ice‐bonding effect, and (2) integration of descriptions for soils at unfrozen and frozen states using the concept of residual stress (by Nixon and Morgenstern). The freeze‐thaw cycling effect is naturally incorporated by the introduction of residual stress line that is used to determine the initial stress state and preconsolidation pressure of thawed soil. After being implemented into FORTRAN subroutines for ABAQUS, the performance of the proposed model is demonstrated by simulating triaxial compression tests on frozen sand at different temperatures under confining pressures, and freeze‐thaw cycling processes of silty clay under loading.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".