MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1995585573 · doi:10.1520/gtj104172

Influence of Specimen Geometry on Sample Disturbance Observed in Oedometric Testing of Clay Shales

2012· article· en· W1995585573 on OpenAlexaff
J. Suzanne Powell, Greg Siemens, W. Andy Take, Vicki Remenda

Bibliographic record

VenueGeotechnical Testing Journal · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil Mechanics
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityRoyal Military College of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeotechnical engineeringDisturbance (geology)GeologyGeomorphology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract There has been a significant amount of research investigating the relationship between sample disturbance and laboratory test results in soft soils. As a result of this research, the general rule adopted is that using larger specimens results in less sample disturbance. When testing these larger specimens in the laboratory, the results are more representative of in situ behavior of the materials. In contrast, there has been relatively little corresponding research performed on hard soils whose behavior typically lies on the boundary between rock and soil. Extensive unloading in hard soils, from sampling, results in large suctions (negative pore pressures) and the formation of fractures that are uncharacteristic of the material in its natural state. This poses the question of whether the use of small specimens would produce more reliable laboratory results. This paper investigates the following two hypotheses within the context of oedometric testing: (1) testing smaller diameter specimens will produce results more representative of the in situ behavior of the material, and (2) an aspect ratio of 2.5 may reduce disturbance to the specimen during preparation are tested. The results of this testing program, including the intact material properties, and a characterization of the compression behaviour of clay shale from the Bearpaw Formation is also presented herein. Results show that a reduced specimen size, when working with a hard clay shale, minimizes the effect of disturbance and produces results that are the most representative of the intact material. Decreased specimen size also aids in determining preconsolidation pressure by not only reducing the disturbance to the sample resulting from unloading, but also by enabling these high stresses to be achieved in conventional testing equipment. Two criteria from the literature were used to assess disturbance within the oedometer specimens. Overall, the methods provide a good baseline of assessing disturbance, however, there is less gradation to the quality of a specimen in a hard soil. Parameters Cc and σ′p were sensitive to sample disturbance, however, other parameters such as cv and K were less dramatically affected by disturbance. Therefore, care must be taken when assessing the compression of a hard soil as failing to achieve sufficiently higher stresses and the presence of disturbed specimens may lead to misleading Cc and σ′p values.

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)0.017
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.671
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.189 · 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.

Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations4
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeotechnical Testing JournalSame topicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil MechanicsFrench-language works237,207