Effect of Compaction Duration on the Induced Stress Levels in a Laboratory Prepared Sand Bed
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In foundation engineering, due to the complexity of the problems investigated, the need for laboratory testing of prototype models arises. The results of these tests are usually utilized to validate theories, or to develop empirical formulae for design purposes. The success in obtaining good predictions from these theories and empirical formulae lies heavily on the reliability of the experimental test results, and accordingly, on the test setup used and the procedure followed. In literature, a wide range of discrepancies can be found among various design theories for shallow and deep foundations in cohesionless soils. These discrepancies can be explained by the fact that the in situ stress levels in the prototype model have not been evaluated but rather ignored, in developing design theories. Accordingly, different theories may generate different results, depending on the techniques and procedures followed in developing the experimental results used to validate the theory. This paper presents the results of an experimental investigation on the effect of compaction duration in a prototype model on the mechanical properties, and the induced stress levels in the sand mass. The results of this investigation should develop some awareness of the validity of using the results of model testing as a guide in developing design theories. Furthermore, attempts should be made to measure and incorporate the in situ stress level as a governing parameter in design theories.
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".