Mechanical response and energy evolution of interbedded shales subjected to multilevel constant/increasing-amplitude cyclic loading
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The established research hotspots of shales, which play a significant roles in the stability of slopes, mainly focuses on its bedding plane effect under conventional stress paths, although landslides frequently suffer from complex stress disturbances. This study aims to investigate the effects of cyclic loading paths and interbed structure on the mechanical properties and energy evolution characteristics of shale. In the experiments, shale specimens with five types bedded angles (0°, 30°, 45°, 60°, and 90°) were prepared, and multilevel constant-amplitude cyclic loading (stress path Ⅰ) and multilevel increasing-amplitude cyclic loading (stress path Ⅱ) were performed. The results indicated that the mechanical behaviors including strength, deformation and failure modes, energy dissipation, and internal damping of shale samples were all highly affected by the bedding plane angles and the cyclic loading paths. Specifically, with the increasing of bedding angle, the peak strength, total dissipated energy, and total input energy of the shale specimens showed a “U” trend, the ultimate macro-failure mode changed from mixed tension-shear failure to failure along the bedding planes, and the damping ratio firstly increased and then decreased. In addition, test schemes of stepwise increase of the lower stress limit or keeping it constant were the differences between stress path Ⅰ and stress path Ⅱ, which significantly influenced the evolution of irreversible deformation of shale specimens. Peak strength of shale samples under stress path Ⅰ ranged from 4.3% to 23.9% lower than under stress path Ⅱ. Compared with stress path Ⅱ, elastic modulus and damping ratios of shales had the greater variations, under stress path Ⅰ, and dissipated energy and elastic strain energy were relatively low by an order of magnitude.
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".