A simplified procedure to estimate the shear strength envelope of unsaturated soils
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Procedures that allow the prediction of some properties of unsaturated soils or the minimization of the number of tests needed to measure them are advantageous because the control of suction during testing is a formidable task that is time consuming and involves a great degree of expertise. A simplified procedure is proposed in this paper to estimate the shear strength of an unsaturated soil. The procedure is based on an empirical hyperbolic function that has been successfully used to fit experimental data. The function requires two input values, namely the shear strength of a saturated sample and the shear strength of an air-dried sample tested without the need for suction control. Samples tested under a controlled suction larger than the maximum suction expected in the problem can, alternatively, replace the air-dried samples. Both alternatives were tested against results for various soils reported in the literature. The good agreement between the estimates and the experimental data indicates that the proposed procedure is promising and reliable for estimating preliminary unsaturated shear strength parameters.Key words: unsaturated soil, suction, shear strength, prediction, laboratory tests.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".