MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2013982606 · doi:10.1139/t04-086

Role of osmotic suction in swelling of salt-amended clays

2005· article· en· W2013982606 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sudhakar M. Rao, P. Shivananda

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSoil and Unsaturated Flow
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOedometer testSwellingPore water pressureSuctionGeotechnical engineeringSwellSoil waterSalt (chemistry)ChemistryHydraulic conductivityWater flowSoil scienceGeologyMineralogyMaterials scienceComposite materialThermodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present study examines the influence of extraneous salt addition on pore-fluid osmotic suction of a clay soil. The dependence of swell potentials of the salt-amended clay specimens on initial pore-fluid osmotic suction is also examined. The osmotic suctions predicted by Van't Hoff's equation are in excess or smaller than the values calculated from the pore water electrical conductivity, depending on whether the Van't Hoff factor in the Van't Hoff equation is included or not. Experimental results suggest that the salt-amended specimens absorbed water and swelled in response to matric suction and chemical concentration gradients on inundation with water in oedometer cells. Salt also diffused from the soil pores of salt-amended specimens to the reservoir water in oedometer cells in response to chemical concentration gradients. Reduction in effective stress from osmotic flow into the soil specimen and increase in interparticle repulsion from reduction in pore-water salt concentration rendered the total swell potentials of salt-amended specimens independent of initial pore-fluid osmotic suction. The initial pre-fluid osmotic suction does, however, significantly affect the rate of swelling.Key words: clays, chemical properties, swell potential, suction.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.053
Threshold uncertainty score0.485

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.186
Teacher spread0.180 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations76
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Geotechnical JournalSame topicSoil and Unsaturated FlowFrench-language works237,207