Bibliographic record
Abstract
Very little is known about how to interpret cone penetration tests (CPTs) when performed in unsaturated soils. The few published studies on CPTs in unsaturated soils have focused on either clean sands or silt. In this study, new results of laboratory-controlled CPTs in an unsaturated silty sand are presented. Silty sand exhibits hydraulic hysteresis and suction hardening. Suction is observed to have a pronounced effect on measured cone penetration resistance. For an isotropic net confining stress of 60 kPa, it is observed that higher suctions give rise to cone penetration resistances that are 50% larger than those for lower suctions. A semi-theoretical correlation is presented that links measured cone penetration resistances to initial relative density and mean effective stress. Suction has an influence on cone penetration resistances through suction hardening, as well as its contribution to effective stress. For this silty sand, it is shown that failing to account for suction may result in significant overestimations and unsafe predictions of soil properties from measured cone penetration resistances.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".