Suction and anisotropy effects on the stiffness characteristics of a compacted lateritic clay from small to large strains
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lateritic clay has distinct properties from other clays due to its high sesquioxide content. Its stiffness characteristics have not been well understood, especially when the soil is unsaturated and anisotropic. This study investigated the stiffness characteristics of compacted lateritic clay through suction-controlled triaxial compression tests equipped with local strain measurements. Both vertically and horizontally cut specimens were tested to determine the evolution of stiffness anisotropy during shearing. Three suctions (0, 10, and 150 kPa) and two confining pressures (50 and 200 kPa) were considered. When strains are relatively small (e.g., less than 0.2%), the secant Young's modulus Esec of vertical specimens is consistently higher than that of horizontal specimens at all suctions and stresses due to the inherent anisotropic structure. The degree of anisotropy increases with increasing suction since suction enhances the stiffness more significantly in vertical specimens than in horizontal specimens. This behaviour may be due to an enhanced force chain in the vertical direction during shearing. As strains increase, the degradation of Esec normalized by the maximum Young's modulus E0 is almost independent of suction and anisotropy. Lateritic clay has a higher degradation rate than other clays with a similar plasticity index because of its aggregated microstructure.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".