Comparison between laboratory and in situ values of the coefficient of primary consolidation<i>c</i><sub>v</sub>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many curve-fitting procedures based on the Terzaghi uncoupled consolidation theory have been proposed for determination of the laboratory coefficient of primary consolidation, cv. This paper presents data from 10 oedometer tests performed on clay samples from three different sites, with the cvvalues having been obtained using four different fitting procedures. The in situ settlements of the clay layers were measured using borehole extensometers. In this way the in situ cvvalues of the same clay were determined and compared with the laboratory values. At times, the four methods show considerable differences in the values of cvdetermined in the laboratory. Casagrande's method gives values that differ from those of the other methods and is not always easily usable. The other three methods provide a more consistent evaluation of the values cv. The comparison between in situ and laboratory cvvalues is not straight forward, since these findings show that the macrostructure of the soil layer influences the behaviour of the whole layer, and the laboratory cvvalues, apart from the method used for their determination, are sometimes unable to interpret settlement over time.Key words: clay, coefficient of primary consolidation, consolidation, embankment.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".