Laboratory investigation of efficiency of conical-based pounders for dynamic compaction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The pounder for dynamic compaction is conventionally built to have a flat bottom. An innovative idea of using a conical-based pounder to improve the efficiency of dynamic compaction has been investigated, and the results are presented in this paper. Both a conical-based pounder and a flat-based pounder were used in an extensive programme of laboratory dynamic compaction tests. An air pluviation technique was used to prepare dry sand specimens, 60 cm in diameter and 50 cm high, to have initial relative densities of 30% and 40%. Wet sand specimens with an initial relative density of 60% were prepared from the dry sand specimens. A total of 14 dynamic compaction tests were performed. The results of each test include dimensions of the crater, heave around the crater, and cone penetration resistance at 13 penetration locations. It is found from the test results that the efficiency of dynamic compaction with the conical-based pounder depends on both the grain size characteristics and the volume change behaviour of the sand. The conical-based pounder is more effective in the Mai-Liao fine sand with 8% fines than in the clean Ottawa medium sand.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".