Evaluation of soil state from SBP and CPT: A case history
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The cone pressuremeter test (CPT) is widely used to determine the in situ “state” of cohesionless soils. However, although the CPT is simple, inexpensive, and accurate the subsequent interpretation contains substantial uncertainties even with modern approaches. Self-bored pressuremeters (SBP) have the opposite attributes. Obtaining good SBP data is difficult in sands, but the subsequent evaluation can be rather precise. This paper compares estimates of the in situ state parameter, ψ, from CPT and SBP tests carried out in a uniform hydraulic fill. This case history is unusual in that (i) the fill was well controlled and uniform, (ii) comprehensive laboratory strength data exists, (iii) the CPT was calibrated for the fill in a large chamber, and (iv) good SBP data exist. These SBP and CPT tests are independently analyzed using a calibrated critical state model implemented in a large strain finite element code. The effects of ageing and fabric are considered. The resulting most probable in situ state parameters for the fill from the CPT are close to those derived from the SBP. Although not proof of accuracy (validation) of either test, since ground truth is not known, the results lend support to the adequacy of the interpretation methodology used for both. Further improvements are discussed.
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".