Swell pressure, matric suction, and matric suction equivalent for undisturbed expansive clays
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Methods of computation for soil heave based on an “equivalent” net normal stress path approach often have built-in assumptions regarding the relationship between in situ matric suction, overburden stress, and swell pressure. The term “matric suction equivalent” has been previously defined as the difference between in situ state of stress projected on the net normal stress plane (represented by swell pressure) and overburden stress. Correlations between matric suction, overburden stress, and swell pressure for matric suction values in excess of the air-entry value have not been well studied and are explored here for expansive soils. Filter paper (in-contact) and constant volume swell pressure tests were performed on undisturbed tube samples of expansive soils taken from Arizona, Colorado, and Texas. In general, the ratio of the matric suction equivalent to the matric suction decreases with increasing soil suction. An empirical relationship was established in which the matric suction equivalent was found to be proportional to the logarithm of the matric suction for in situ matric suctions greater than a certain value, termed as the “intercept matric suction”. A correlation between the intercept matric suction and the soil’s plasticity index (PI) was found for the clays of this study. The developed correlations represent a method for obtaining approximate estimates of in situ matric suction for expansive soils from PI and swell pressure data. Implications of the study findings for the use of an equivalent net normal stress approach for estimation of soil heave are explored.
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".