Evaluation of relative density profiles of sand fill at a reclaimed site
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The determination of relative density is an important part of site characterization for reclaimed sand fill. In practice, a direct determination of the relative density profile is not always possible, and very often one has to resort to indirect methods using in situ tests, such as the cone penetration test. The usefulness of the indirect method is strongly affected by the validity of available correlations. This investigation compares relative density profiles of reclaimed sand fill created from a marine sand by two distinctively different placement methods at the Changi East reclamation site in Singapore as obtained using both the direct and indirect methods. For reclaimed fill, the relative density profile is found to be predominantly influenced by the method of sand placement, although the basic characteristics of the sand also have an effect. Existing correlations developed in calibration chamber tests for indirect evaluation of relative density from the cone resistance in silicate sand are found to provide a slight underestimate of the relative density in direct-dumped fill in Changi, mainly because of the high compressibility of the marine sand. On the other hand, inadequate consideration of overconsolidation and variation in particle size from the specific placement process have led to an overestimate of the relative density in hydraulically placed sand fill in Changi using similarly derived correlations.Key words: in situ density, relative density, sand, land reclamation, cone penetration test, sand placement.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".