Alternative method of determining resilient modulus of subbase soils using a static triaxial test
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The cyclic test for the determination of resilient modulus (M R ) is often too complex and time-consuming to be applicable on a production basis. Therefore, the development of a simple and reliable alternative M R testing technique is essential for the application in the mechanistic design of a flexible pavement system. Seven disturbed subbase soils were collected from the actual pavement projects for testing. To evaluate the effect of particle size on M R , standard M R tests with various maximum particle sizes and specimen diameters were performed using three subbase soils. The resilient moduli determined from various specimen sizes with the same particle-size distribution were almost identical. However, the value of the slope parameter k 2 in the bulk stress model was constant, but the value of k 1 increased with a decrease in maximum particle size. The effects of mean effective stress, loading frequency, and number of loading cycles on modulus were evaluated from torsional shear (TS), triaxial (TX), and M R tests. The alternative M R testing procedure using the static TX test was proposed considering deformational characteristics of subbase soils. The predicted M R values from the proposed method matched well with those determined by the standard M R test, showing the capability of the proposed method for determining M R .Key words: resilient modulus (M R ), alternative M R test, subbase soils, triaxial compression test, deformational characteristics, particle size.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".