MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409979059 · doi:10.11159/ijci.2025.004

A Normalized Hyperbolic Approach for Predicting Peak Shear Strength in Multistage Direct Shear Tests

2025· article· en· W4409979059 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
María José Toledo Arcic, Jens Engel

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Civil Infrastructure · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicLandslides and related hazards
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersBundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung
KeywordsShear (geology)Direct shear testGeologyGeotechnical engineeringMaterials scienceMechanicsPhysicsComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study presents a predictive framework for estimating peak shear strength and the corresponding shear displacement in direct shear tests, with a particular focus on applications to multistage testing.A normalized hyperbolic function, originally developed for triaxial tests, is adapted to represent the shear stress-displacement curve up to failure.Based on a dataset of 484 direct shear tests performed on 175 different soils, the parameters of the model were derived through regression and empirically linked to the normalized secant elastic modulus.In multistage direct shear tests, early termination of the initial shearing phases often prevents the direct measurement of peak values.To address this, a prediction algorithm was developed that estimates the unknown peak shear strength and displacement based on the initial portion of the shear curve.This algorithm combines empirical relationships with a stochastic search method based on differential evolution to minimize the prediction error.The model was validated across the full dataset, and simulations showed that peak values could be predicted with high accuracy even when only 60% of the displacement at failure was used as input.The results highlight the potential of this approach to improve the reliability and efficiency of multistage shear testing in fine-grained, coarse-grained, and mixed soils.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.185
Threshold uncertainty score0.587

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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.246
Teacher spread0.242 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Civil InfrastructureSame topicLandslides and related hazardsFrench-language works237,207