Is P-Wave Velocity an Indicator of Saturation in Sand with Viscous Pore Fluid?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is commonly assumed that within inundated sand the Skempton B value and P-wave velocity decrease with decrease in saturation. In centrifuge tests a common saturation procedure is to inundate the specimen with carbon dioxide while under a vacuum and then slowly introduce the viscous pore fluid. The B value and related saturation is difficult to measure in centrifuge models and P-wave velocity—saturation correlations have been used for this purpose. A laboratory emulation of centrifuge saturation procedures was made using a triaxial cell with top and bottom bender elements and a viscous methyl cellulose–water pore fluid. Contrary to expectations, the laboratory tests showed high P-wave velocities indicative of full saturation when B values were low. Numerical modeling of the laboratory tests indicated that if air bubbles within the pore fluid are numerous and closely spaced then there is a good correlation between saturation, B value, and P-wave velocity. However if the air bubbles are larger and only present in some of the pores then the P-wave velocity is not a good indicator of B value and average saturation. The laboratory tests also showed that placing the specimen under backpressure for several days increased saturation and related B values. It is suggested that this common laboratory procedure should be considered for saturating centrifuge test specimens.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".