Analysis of particle corner-breakage effect on pile penetration in coral sand: model tests and DEM simulations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although particle corner breakage has been proved to be the primary mode of particle breakage for coral sand, current studies of pile penetration have continued to present the particle fracture breakage mode, causing the mechanism of pile behaviours in coral sand to remain unclear. This study investigates the particle corner-breakage effect on pile penetration in coral sand at both the macro- and microscales via indoor pile penetration model testing and three-dimensional discrete element method (DEM) simulations. According to the study findings, DEM simulations revealed that particle corner breakage has a more obvious soil contraction effect than fracture breakage. Thus, this study is the first to explain the particular turn of the pile skin friction in coral sand by the dual effects of breakable corners. Next, relationships between the particle breakage mode and the controversial breakage zone around pile tips have been accomplished. Moreover, the decrease in effective contacts and the change in soil skeleton have been proved to be essential factors behind the narrower penetration-affected width in breakable corner grains. The study suggests that neglecting the particle corner-breakage effect can lead to a hidden danger affecting engineering safety in angular granular soil.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".