MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411146486 · doi:10.1520/gtj20240067

Peak Friction Angle of Sand at a Wide Range of Effective Stresses from Drained Direct Shear, Triaxial, and Plane-Strain Tests for the Design of Retaining Structures

2025· article· en· W4411146486 on OpenAlexafffund
V. Santiago Quinteros, R. J. Fannin, Rune Dyvik

Bibliographic record

VenueGeotechnical Testing Journal · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil Stabilization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsGeotechnical engineeringTriaxial shear testFriction angleShear (geology)GeologyDirect shear testPlane stressShear stressRetaining wallRange (aeronautics)Materials scienceComposite materialEngineeringStructural engineeringFinite element methodPetrology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT A uniformly graded clean sand from a backfill of a sloped reinforced soil wall, located in Skedsmo, Norway, was tested in direct shear, triaxial, and plane-strain modes of shear. The tests were performed at a range of effective stress ranging between 4 kPa to 300 kPa. The goal of the laboratory testing program was to assess the credibility of typical empirical correlations to estimate friction angles used in the design practice of retaining walls. Additionally, the experimental results obtained were compared with the very few exclusive literature studies in which all three devices have been used at comparable effective stresses. The discussion addresses the extent previous empirical correlations are applicable and the selection of the peak friction angle in design practice. The stress levels were chosen to represent in situ conditions for a variety of geotechnical problems, like sloped reinforced walls or sloped dam faces, but also offshore for cables, suction buckets, or shallow template foundations.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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 score0.556
Threshold uncertainty score0.821

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.222 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeotechnical Testing JournalSame topicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil StabilizationFrench-language works237,207