MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406190148 · doi:10.1061/ijgnai.gmeng-9587

Implementation of a Nonlinear State–Dilatancy Law in the NorSand Model

2025· article· en· W4406190148 on OpenAlexaff
Seyyed Kazem Razavi, Samuel Yniesta

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Geomechanics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil Mechanics
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDilatantNonlinear systemState (computer science)LawNonlinear modelGeotechnical engineeringGeologyEngineeringPolitical scienceComputer sciencePhysicsAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The original NorSand (ONS) state-dilatancy law (ONS-SDL) presents challenges when trying to make changes in the formulation of the critical state line or stress–dilatancy rule and the associated yield surface. Additionally, using this law in its current form limits the model's applicability to a specific range of initial state parameters. Due to these limitations, using a higher state–dilatancy parameter for loose samples to improve the undrained response is often not possible. This paper provides a review of the ONS-SDL, and the requirements of a state–dilatancy law in Cambridge-type models in a more explicit way. A comprehensive analysis is then conducted to examine the effects of the chosen law on the model's formulation, its range of applicability, and its effectiveness in simulating undrained responses of loose samples. To address the limitations, a new nonlinear state–dilatancy law is introduced, offering improved responses and enhanced flexibility. This not only improves the model's performance but also allows for the utilization of different stress–dilatancy rules in future models, providing greater flexibility and adaptability. The improvements made by the new formulation have been highlighted by demonstrating the modified version's capabilities in simulating the mechanical behavior of two different sands.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.866
Threshold uncertainty score0.262

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.257 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of GeomechanicsSame topicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil MechanicsFrench-language works237,207