Importance of Sample Height–Diameter Ratio in Triaxial Testing with Free Ends for Determination of the Critical State of Sands
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT The use of lubricated free end platens in triaxial testing to promote uniform deformation of the test specimen has a history dating back to the work of D.W. Taylor and others in the 1950s and 1960s, as documented by Rowe and Barden. The performance of critical state triaxial testing programs has become standard industry practice for defining the critical state line (CSL) for silts, sands, and mine tailings to support static liquefaction assessments using a critical state soil mechanics framework. In current practice, the use of free ends is most often combined with the use of a traditional specimen height-to-diameter ratio of 2:1. This paper investigates the effect of the original recommendation of Rowe and Barden, for the use of a 1:1 height-to-diameter ratio in combination with free ends, on the determination of the CSL and other constitutive model parameters for a glaciofluvial feldspathic quartz sand.
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 | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".