Nondestructive Shear Stiffness Evaluation of EPS-Sand Composites Using Quartz and Calcareous Aggregates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The influence of expanded polystyrene (EPS) beads inclusion on the shear stiffness of a quartz-based material and a calcareous-based material has been examined by performing a comprehensive series of non-destructive bender element tests. To this end, siliceous-based Firoozkooh and calcareous-based Hormuz sands are mixed with different percentages of expanded polystyrene beads and then tested with a bender element apparatus embedded in a triaxial cell. Accordingly, the influences of confining pressure, void ratio, grain size distribution, and different percentages of expanded polystyrene beads on the small-strain shear modulus of siliceous and calcareous sands are thoroughly studied and discussed. For all mixtures of both sands, the maximum shear modulus increases with increasing confining pressure, but decreases with increasing void ratio and expanded polystyrene beads content in the mixture. The contribution of expanded polystyrene beads to the reduction of small-strain shear modulus is observed to be more pronounced for the quartz-based aggregate as compared to the calcareous-based aggregate. The confining pressure is also observed to have no influence on the small-strain shear modulus of the composites at high expanded polystyrene bead contents due primarily to the notably high compressibility of soft beads diminishing the augmented interparticle contact forces caused by increasing isotropic confinement. Using the results of experiments, different small-strain shear modulus expressions are developed for quartz-based and calcareous-based compacted fill-expanded polystyrene beads composites, which can be utilized for design purposes in earthen structures.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".