Difference between current and voltage measurements in resonant-column testing
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The resonant-column test is one of the most common procedures for dynamic characterization of soils (American Society for Testing and Materials standard). The test procedures require the measurement of the current flowing through the driving coils. In many cases, however, the input voltage has been measured and the results analyzed as a traditional current measurement. In this paper, the difference between current and voltage measurements is clarified; specifically, a new transfer function is presented for the analysis of data when the input voltage is measured. The new model is evaluated by testing three aluminum probes. Wave velocities computed from voltage and current measurements are similar; however, damping ratios are significantly overestimated if voltage-based measurements are analyzed with the standard procedures because the motion of the magnets induces an opposite voltage in the coils. Results from voltage and current measurements agree only if the new transfer function is used for the analysis of voltage data. Exploratory results for a dry-sand specimen, tested under different shear-strain levels (maximum shear strain γ max < 10 3 ), demonstrate the effect of nonlinear behaviour on current and voltage measurements. Current-based measurements are recommended because they do not require the evaluation of the complex impedance of the driving coils. Furthermore, current-based measurements are more precise, especially for the characterization of specimens that have low resonant frequencies.Key words: resonant-column testing, damping ratio, attenuation, mechanical waves, shear modulus, wave velocity.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it