Micromechanics and Strain Localization in Sand in the Ductile Regime
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Critical processes including seismic faulting, reservoir compartmentalization, and borehole failure involve high‐pressure mechanical behavior and strain localization of sedimentary rocks such as sandstone. Sand is often used as a model material to study the mechanical behavior of poorly lithified sandstone. Recent studies exploring the multi‐scale mechanics of sand have characterized the brittle, low‐pressure regime of behavior; however, limited work has provided insights into the ductile, high‐pressure regime of behavior via in‐situ measurements. Critical features of the ductile regime, including grain breakage, grain micromechanics, and volumetric strain behavior therefore remain under‐explored. Here, we use a new high‐pressure triaxial apparatus with in‐situ x‐ray tomography to provide new insights into deformation banding, grain breakage, and grain micromechanics in Ottawa sand subjected to triaxial compression under confining pressures between 10 and 45 MPa. We observed strain‐hardening at pressures above 15 MPa and strain‐neutral responses at pressures below 15 MPa. Compacting shear bands and grain breakage were observed at all pressures with no significant variation due to grain size, except for minor increases in breakage in less‐rounded sands. Grain breakage emerged at stress levels lower than the assumed yield threshold and more intense breakage was associated with thinner deformation bands. Contact sliding at inter‐grain contacts demonstrated a bifurcation into a bimodal distribution, with intense sliding within deformation bands and reduced but non‐negligible sliding outside of deformation bands, suggesting that off‐band zones remain mechanically active during strain hardening.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".