Measurement of swelling pressure: direct method versus indirect methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Light structures including highways and railroads built over potentially expansive clay soils may suffer damage from swelling. Considerable research has been done in an attempt to characterize swelling properties of expansive soils. Although direct measurement of swelling pressure is relatively straightforward, it has not drawn much interest. The present study attempts to measure swelling pressure directly. We call experimental techniques for swelling pressure other than this direct method the indirect methods. Some indirect methods require more than one soil sample and that all samples be identical. However, natural soils may not always provide identical samples. Therefore, reconstructed identical soil samples produced from natural soils were used in the present study. For comparison, the restricted swell, swell-consolidation, double oedometer, and zero swell tests were employed as indirect methods. While the restricted swell test slightly underestimated swell pressure, swell-consolidation and zero swell tests overestimated it. The double oedometer test did not provide swell pressures correlatable with those found using the direct method. Free swell data correlated reasonably well with swell pressure data from the direct method, so an empirical form was established from which swell pressure can be easily estimated.
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 | 0.002 | 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".