New Three-Way Split Mold Design and Experimental Procedure for Testing Soft, Grouted Soils
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Soil grouting has become a popular method for soil improvement in recent years. Grouting is generally intended to increase a soil’s strength, increase its liquefaction resistance, or reduce its hydraulic conductivity. Soil grouting involves the injection, permeation, or mechanical mixing of cementitious, silica, or clay grout into a soil deposit. With the increase in popularity of these methods comes the issue of testing grouted soils to verify the expected soil improvement. While some of the methods and materials mentioned result in soils that are sufficiently cemented to produce trimmable specimens that can stand under their own weight, other methods produce softer materials that are very difficult to sample or even to recreate and test in the lab. Preparing such soft samples in the laboratory poses two challenges: 1) if the specimen is prepared in the triaxial cell directly, the grouting process might not be feasible because of the porous stones and small diameter tubing in the triaxial cell; and 2) if the specimens are prepared outside the triaxial cell, soft specimens might not be able to stand under their own weight without significant strains and damage to the soil structure. This paper will thoroughly describe a three-way split mold specifically designed to accommodate the permeation and testing of soils that are too soft or too weak to be easily sampled or tested in the lab. A simple procedure outlining the use of this three-way split mold will also be described. Finally, the results from a series of consolidated undrained, monotonically loaded triaxial tests will be presented as an example of the split mold application. These tests utilized the new three-way split mold for sample preparation of loose Ottawa sand permeated with a thixotropic bentonite suspension.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".