Interpretation of sand state from cone penetration resistance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The cone penetration test (CPT) is a widely used test for determining in situ state (or density) of cohesionless soils. The reliability of the estimated in situ state parameter, ψ, is constrained, however, because intrinsic soil properties affect the CPT response (often called a ‘compressibility’ effect). Here, the limiting cavity expansion pressure is used as an analogue for CPT tip resistance, qc, to determine the effect of intrinsic soil properties on the qc versus ψ relation. The limiting cavity pressure is computed by a large strain finite element code using a critical state-based soil model. This cavity expansion idealisation is then scaled to reference calibration chamber data with a universal shape function. The approach leads to a practically simple and theoretically sound method in which results from a few triaxial tests allow calculation of a sand-specific CPT qc–ψ calibration. The method is tested against published reference studies on nine sands and recovers ψ with a precision in void ratio of Δe = ± 0·04 at approximately 80% confidence. This accuracy for soils with elasticity measured by bender elements is considerably greater, Δe = ± 0·04 being obtained at approximately 95% confidence.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".