Effect of sample disturbance on triaxial and oedometer behaviour of a stiff and heavily overconsolidated clay
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The tests in this investigation were performed on a natural soft clay with plasticity index around 32%, which was K0consolidated to a vertical stress of 2942 kPa and then K0unloaded to a vertical stress of 74 kPa (i.e., to the “in situ” stress). The specimens so created were disturbed in various ways to study the effect of sample disturbance on the stress–strain relationships during undrained shearing and during drained K0loading (i.e., K0triaxial and oedometer tests). The results for two testing alternatives may be summarized as follows. Alternative 1: Allow the specimen to swell at the correct in situ effective stresses, but accept an initial water content that is higher than the in situ value. This alternative was found to give the best stress–strain relationships around the in situ effective stresses for undrained triaxial tests, but with undrained shear strength values up to about 20% too low, due to the swelling taking place during consolidation to the in situ effective stresses. Alternative 2: Prevent swelling by starting the test at effective stresses that are higher than the in situ stresses, but with a water content that is closer to the in situ value than if alternative 1 is chosen. Using only isotropic stresses prior to shearing, this alternative was found to give better undrained shear strength values (although up to about 14% too high) but strain values much too small around the in situ effective stresses. For oedometer tests, only alternative 2 was investigated. Also, for these tests, the strains around the in situ stress were too small, but preconsolidation stresses estimated from stress–strain curves were typically only around 60% of the true value.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".