Finite element modelling of constant stress drained direct simple shear tests on sand for monotonic loading
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Simple shear loading is commonly observed in many practical geotechnical engineering problems, and is considerably different from that applied in commonly used geotechnical laboratory tests, such as direct shear and triaxial tests. The simple shear loading conditions in laboratory specimens could be created in several ways; among them, the direct simple shear (DSS) test is apopularonebecause of simplicity of specimen preparation and testing. However, the interpretation of the test results is challenging because the stress state in the specimens cannot be properly evaluated, as typical DSS apparatus allows the measurement of only normal and shear stresses at the top or bottom surface. DSS tests show some different response in some cases; for example, there is less pronounced strain-softening of dense sand compared to that in triaxial tests. Moreover, empirical equations have been proposed based on experimental results, which might be used to estimate soil parameters such as angle of internal friction. Examining the response of soil elements in DSS specimens using Finite Element Method (FEM), it becomes possible to evaluate the complete behavior observed in the laboratory tests. In the present study, three-dimensional finite element (FE) simulation of DSS test is performed for stacked ring and Cambridge type apparatus. In the simulations, a normal stress is applied and then sheared monotonically by maintaining the same normal stress (constant stress test). Simulations are performed for medium and dense sands using the Mohr–Coulomb and a modified Mohr–Coulomb model that considers post-peak softening, respectively. FE results show that stresses are uniform in the central core of the specimen while considerable stress non-uniformity occurs near the boundaries. The stress state at the failure is neither on the point of stress obliquity nor on the maximum shear stress, which has been considered in some studies to calculate the friction angle. Interface resistance between soil and vertical surface(s) increase the stress ratio compared to smooth interface conditions.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".