Determination of the Shear Strength of Unsaturated Loess Samples from Conventional Triaxial Shear Tests Applying Rubber Membrane Correction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The shear strength parameters of loess samples are determined from conventional triaxial shear test results and used in the rational design of sustainable geotechnical infrastructures. However, the rubber membrane that is used in the triaxial shear apparatus for applying the all-around pressure to the test specimen has a significant influence on the measured shear strength parameters. In this paper, remolded and undisturbed unsaturated loess samples from northwest China are used in a comprehensive testing program to determine the shear strength from triaxial tests and understand the influence of a rubber membrane. The results show that the measured undrained cohesion from unconsolidated undrained triaxial tests on unsaturated soil specimens with and without a rubber membrane are significantly different. In this study, differences in the shear strength with and without a rubber membrane are assessed from shear strength index values that can be determined from undrained cohesion and the internal friction angle derived from conventional triaxial tests. Experimental results suggest that predominant changes arise mainly in the undrained cohesion values. The change rate of shear strength indices values of undisturbed loess shows a strong correlation with its water content; however, it is weak for remolded loess. The correlation coefficient between error and measured values of all shear strength indices is more than 0.8. Empirical correction relationships for triaxial shear tests with a rubber membrane for three different types of loess were established from the investigations. The simple approach used in this study can be used as a reference to apply corrections to the measured undrained cohesion values of unsaturated loess samples from northwest China.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".