MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Is P-Wave Velocity an Indicator of Saturation in Sand with Viscous Pore Fluid?

2007· article· en· W2083514491 on OpenAlexaff
Ernest Naesgaard, Peter Byrne, Dharma Wijewickreme

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Geomechanics · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil Mechanics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCentrifugeSaturation (graph theory)Geotechnical engineeringDegree of saturationGeologyWater saturationMechanicsMineralogyMaterials sciencePhysicsPorositySoil scienceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.247
Threshold uncertainty score0.440

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.220 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations38
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of GeomechanicsSame topicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil MechanicsFrench-language works237,207