Triaxial tests on artificially cemented Fraser River sand in a very loose condition
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The addition of Portland cement to soil is a technique widely used to improve mechanical properties. This paper presents the findings from a laboratory research program to study the mechanical behavior of artificially cemented sands. The results of drained triaxial tests conducted on specimens of mixture of Fraser River sand and cement are presented and discussed. The soil used in this study was sand obtained from the Fraser River, British Columbia, Canada. The specimens were prepared using a cement content of 5% by dry weight of soil to result in a void ratio of 0.98 (representing a relatively loose condition) and with curing in a wet room for 28 days. The tests indicated that the soil displayed dilatant behavior at low effective confining stresses and contractive behavior at high effective confining stresses. It was possible to define the shear strength characteristics based on the peak deviator stress under low effective confining stresses and large-strain shear resistance. The peak soil strength under low confining stresses could be described using a cohesion intercept of 41.8 kPa and friction angle of 29.3°. Under large deformations, a friction angle of 34.2° was observed which is similar to the constant volume friction angle reported for the natural Fraser River 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.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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 it