MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1917823088 · doi:10.1139/t11-086

New method to determine proper strain rate for constant rate-of-strain consolidation tests

2011· article· en· W1917823088 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Abdullah Tolga Özer, Evert C. Lawton, Steven F. Bartlett

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil Mechanics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConsolidation (business)Void ratioGeotechnical engineeringCompressibilityStrain rateEffective stressVoid (composites)Pore water pressureSoil waterSoil testMaterials scienceOedometer testMontmorilloniteGeologyMechanicsSoil scienceComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The development of a new semiempirical method to predict the proper strain rate for constant rate-of-strain (CRS) consolidation tests is described herein. The validity of the proposed method is analyzed using experimental results from CRS and incremental loading tests on four types of soil: Lake Bonneville clay, Massena clay, kaolinite, and montmorillonite. It is found that the maximum allowable strain rate depends on the initial void ratio of the soil and thus is related to the compressibility of the soil. The effect of the strain rate on the distribution of the pore pressure within the sample is investigated by comparing values of effective vertical stress calculated using a linear equation published by Wissa et al. in 1971 with values of effective stress at the base of the specimen determined from measured values of pore pressure. Overall, the proposed method predicts the maximum allowable strain rate very well for three of the four soils and moderately well for the other soil.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.834
Threshold uncertainty score0.939

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.216 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations23
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Geotechnical JournalSame topicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil MechanicsFrench-language works237,207