Reply to the discussion by J. Chu, W.K. Leong, and W.L. Loke on "Defining an appropriate steady state line for Merriespruit gold tailings"
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chu et al. provide a discussion of an issue that has long been a source of concern for anyone trying to characterize the potential for liquefaction of sandy material using laboratory testing, i.e., the method of specimen preparation. At the outset, we need to correct an apparent misunderstanding. In their discussion of our paper, Chu et al. query why the gold tailings is labeled as material that “would always exhibit dilative characteristics upon loading”, when our study showed that contractive behaviour was possible. The quoted phrase merely represented the conventional wisdom in South Africa prior to the Merriespruit failure and was based primarily on the results of laboratory testing carried out in commercial laboratories using slurry deposition techniques where little attention was paid to the effect of preparing specimens at a range of initial void ratios. Chu et al. question the method of moist tamping that was used in our experimental programme and quote various researchers to support their view. However, contrary to their claim, Dyvik and Hoeg (1999) found that specimens prepared by both moist tamping and by a slurry deposition technique produced contractive behaviour, whilst undisturbed specimens of the same silty fine sand showed dilative behaviour, even at a slightly higher initial void ratio. These authors attributed the difference to the existence of layering in the undisturbed specimen, which was apparently clearly evident. Vaid and Sivathayalan (2000) have shown results obtained from moist tamping preparation techniques that indicate a less uniform distribution of void ratio than was obtained from the water pluviation method and point to the large collapse settlement of moist tamped specimens upon initial flooding as evidence of the unsuitability of this technique. We would suggest that this component of settlement might be minimized by an appropriate choice of the moisture content at which the moist tamped specimen is prepared. We carry out this screening process as a matter of routine and have found large differences in the volume change upon saturation. It is thus misleading to talk about the moist tamping technique without being clear about the moisture content used. Chu et al. clearly favour the use of the water pluviation technique for specimen preparation, claiming that “water pluviation is considered to produce a soil fabric similar to that of natural sands,” despite the difficulties (which they acknowledge) of segregation that occur when fines are deposited together with sand. They also show results for “identical” specimens that were prepared using water sedimentation and moist tamping techniques and produced dilative and contractive behaviours, respectively. It is questionable whether void ratios can be determined to an accuracy of three decimal places, as implied by their results. We have certainly been unable to produce this level of accuracy. Their ‘identical” specimens may thus not be identical at all. The difference in behaviour could also be because of the almost unavoidable variation in local void ratio that occurs during specimen preparation. As shown by Frost et al. (1999), even the technique of specimen preparation by highly controlled air pluviation could not prevent some degree of nonhomogeneity of void ratio distribution. These authors suggest that global void ratio measures lead to erroneous determinations of the steady state, a problem that is exacerbated with dilative specimens. A key point that does not seem to have been addressed by Chu et al. relates to how we might explain the occurrence of extensive flow failures unless the material that flows is predominantly contractive in nature. The fact that moist tamping produces a structure that is susceptible to strain softening during undrained loading shows that such behaviour is of course possible. The primary question thus seems to be whether the structure developed by moist tamping is representative of what may occur in the field. An interesting factor that appears to have been overlooked by the proponents of water pluviation as a technique of specimen preparation is the nature of the water into which the solid particles
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 | 0.010 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.063 | 0.080 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
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".