MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407996392 · doi:10.1061/9780784485989.032

Acoustic Emissions Characteristics of Dense Sand in Drained and Undrained Triaxial Compression Tests

2025· article· en· W4407996392 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Saad Allah Solh, Seyed Morteza Zeinali, Sherif L. Abdelaziz

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground Structures
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeotechnical engineeringAcoustic emissionGeologyCompression (physics)Triaxial shear testMaterials scienceComposite materialPetrologyShear (geology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study investigates acoustic emissions (AE) from cohesionless soils under both drained and undrained conditions. The AE signals offer valuable insights into micro-scale particle interactions during deformation. Two dense Ottawa sand specimens were subjected to triaxial compression tests under both conditions, with AE signals recorded using two sensors embedded in the top and bottom caps of the triaxial cell. This study showed distinct differences in the AE signal strength versus strain curves for both conditions: drained conditions exhibited a gradual increase in signal strength with axial strain, eventually reaching a steady rate, while undrained conditions showed a rapid increase, peaking and then dropping significantly as pore pressure stabilized. Additionally, dense sand under undrained conditions emitted stronger emissions due to reduced pore pressure and increased contact forces between particles. These findings highlight the significance of AE in understanding micro-scale particle interactions and, consequently, the overall behavior of the soil.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.217 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground StructuresFrench-language works237,207