MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2051641804 · doi:10.1680/geot.2008.58.8.623

Interpretation of sand state from cone penetration resistance

2008· article· en· W2051641804 on OpenAlexaff
Mohsen Ghafghazi, Dawn Shuttle

Bibliographic record

VenueGéotechnique · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil Mechanics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaBC Hydro (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeotechnical engineeringPenetration testCone penetration testCompressibilityVoid ratioSoil waterLimitingLateral earth pressurePenetration (warfare)Elasticity (physics)MechanicsMathematicsMaterials scienceGeologySoil sciencePhysicsEngineeringComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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, q c , to determine the effect of intrinsic soil properties on the q c 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 q c –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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.721
Threshold uncertainty score0.413

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.184
Teacher spread0.177 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations45
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGéotechniqueSame topicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil MechanicsFrench-language works237,207