Grain Crushing in Sand-Structure Problems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
this document is published in / Une version de ce document se trouve dans: CANCAM 2003, Calgary, Alberta, June 1-6, 2003, pp. 312-313 http://irc.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/ircpubs GRAIN CRUSHING IN SAND-STRUCTURE PROBLEMS Morched Zeghal and Tuncer B. Edil Institute for Research in Construction, National Research Council Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0R6 Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA, 53706 Existence of grain crushing The results of modified direct shear tests provided by Hoteit (1990) were analyzed to confirm the existence of crushing and to evaluate the extent of its effect. Hoteit conducted an extensive experimental program on both loose and dense Quiou sand from Bretagne, France, at two initial confining pressures, 100 and 350 kPa, at the Institut National Polytechnique de Grenoble. Quiou sand is a uniform (C u = 9.4) and calcareous sand with a mean grain size of 0.40 mm and an effective grain size of 0.05 mm. Also, he performed tests for constant stress and for constant volume stress paths. Hoteit measured the grain size distribution prior to the test and monitored its change during the shear test. The data were analyzed using the breakage factor defined by Lee and Farhoomand (1967). They evaluated the amount of crushing by defining the ratio f i D D 15 15 / where i D 15 is the diameter corresponding to 15% finer before shearing and f D 15 is the diameter still corresponding to 15% finer but after shearing occurred. The analysis done using both 10 D and 50 D suggests that using the ratio f i D D 50 50 / is more suitable to describe crushing. Figure 1 shows the variation of the breakage factor as a function of the plastic work (at the end of shear tests) using 50 D . The data is more scattered in the case of ...
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".