The full state of stress in monotonic simple shear tests on sand
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The simple shear test has been an important tool in practical geotechnical engineering and the study of soil behaviour. The attractiveness of the simple shear test is founded in its relative ease of specimen preparation, similarity to at-rest conditions during consolidation and rotation of principal stresses during shear. Despite this test's attractive qualities, there are significant deficiencies in the interpretation of standard test results: horizontal normal stresses are not known and excess pore pressures are often interpreted from assumptions about constant-volume tests without saturation. To address this problem, a set of monotonic tests were performed on a sand, during which horizontal normal stresses were measured in the central portion of specimens. Based on the measurements, the full state of stress was defined, stress paths were drawn and directions of the principal stresses were determined. Outcomes showed that the conventional approach of estimating excess pore pressures as the change in vertical pressure to maintain constant volume in response to shear is problematic, and friction angles interpreted from conventionally measured shear and vertical stresses may be grossly underestimated in some cases.
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 | 0.000 | 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".