Analysis of self-boring pressuremeter (SBPM) and Marchetti dilatometer (DMT) tests in granite saprolites
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents the analyses of the results of the site investigation programme carried out at the Kowloon Bay site in Hong Kong. The tests consisted of self-boring pressuremeter (SBPM), Marchetti dilatometer (DMT), and laboratory tests carried out in a granite saprolite, which can be described as a lightly cemented sand. The purpose of this research project is to stimulate the development of methods to interpret data obtained from tests in residual soils. In particular, the work aims to evaluate the analyses of the SBPM data through a curve-fitting technique. Both the loading and unloading portions of the SBPM curve were analysed and the results compared with those from other tests. The advantage of this analysis technique is the possibility of constructing a theoretical curve that reproduces a pressuremeter test from which a set of fundamental parameters can be derived, namely the friction angle, cohesion intercept, lateral stress, and shear modulus. The DMT proved to be a reliable tool that yielded good soil parameters at a small fraction of the cost of the other in situ tests.Key words: residual soil, in situ tests, pressuremeter, Marchetti dilatometer.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".