A new method of measuring plastic limit of fine materials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Index properties such as the liquid limit and plastic limit are widely used to evaluate certain geotechnical parameters of fine-grained soils. Measurement of the liquid limit is a mechanical process, and the possibility of errors occurring during measurement is not significant. However, this is not the case for plastic limit testing, despite the fact that the current method of measurement is embraced by many standards around the world. The method in question relies on a fairly crude procedure known widely as the ‘thread rolling' test, though it has been the subject of much criticism in recent years. It is essential that a new, more reliable method of measuring the plastic limit is developed using a mechanical process that is both consistent and easily reproducible. The work reported in this paper concerns the development of a new device to measure the plastic limit, based on the existing falling cone apparatus. The force required for the test is equivalent to the application of a 54 N fast-static load acting on the existing cone used in liquid limit measurements. The test is complete when the relevant water content of the soil specimen allows the cone to achieve a penetration of 20 mm. The new technique was used to measure the plastic limit of 16 different clays from around the world. The plastic limit measured using the new method identified reasonably well the water content at which the soil phase changes from the plastic to the semi-solid state. Further evaluation was undertaken by conducting plastic limit tests using the new method on selected samples and comparing the results with values reported by local site investigation laboratories. Again, reasonable agreement was found.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".