Characterization of a cemented sand with the pulse-velocity method
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effect of variation in cement content, initial water content, void ratio, and curing time on wave velocity (low-strain property) and unconfined compressive strength (large-strain property) of a cemented sand is examined in this paper. The measured pulse velocity is compared with predictions made using empirical and analytical models, which are mostly based on the published results of resonant column tests. All specimens are made by mixing silica sand and gypsum cement (2.520% by weight) and tested under atmospheric pressure. The wave velocity reaches a maximum at optimum water content, and it is mostly affected by the number of cemented contacts; whereas compressive strength is governed not only by the number of contacts but also by the strength of contacts. Experimental relationships are developed for wave velocity and unconfined compressive strength as functions of cement content and void ratio. Available empirical models underpredict the wave velocity (60% on average), likely because of the effect of microfractures induced by confinement during the testing. Wave velocity is found to be a good indicator of cement content and unconfined compressive strength for the conditions of this study.Key words: wave velocity, low-strain stiffness, cemented sands, elastic moduli, unconfined compressive strength.
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 | 0.000 | 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".