MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2102032190 · doi:10.1139/t01-008

Coefficient of consolidation from the linear segment of the <i>t</i><sup>1/2</sup> curve

2001· article· en· W2102032190 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Tao-Wei Feng, Yi-Jiuan Lee

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGrouting, Rheology, and Soil Mechanics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Science Council
KeywordsOedometer testTerzaghi's principleConsolidation (business)Geotechnical engineeringMathematicsGeologyPore water pressureSoil waterSoil scienceAccounting

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The coefficient of consolidation is commonly determined by fitting the Terzaghi theoretical time factor, T, versus average degree of consolidation, U, relationship to the measured oedometer consolidation curve. A simplified version of the Taylor t1/2 method is proposed in this paper. Since the theoretical T1/2 versus U relationship is linear up to 60% consolidation, the measured t1/2 consolidation curve may also present a linear segment that ends at 60% consolidation. Samples of 10 natural soft clays with liquid limits ranging from 40 to 152% were used to carry out conventional oedometer tests with consolidation increments in the recompression range, spanning the preconsolidation pressure, and in the compression range. Based on the oedometer test results, the effects of secondary compression on the shape of the t1/2 consolidation curve are evaluated and found limited between 60% and 90% consolidation. In the proposed simplified t1/2 method, the time of 60% consolidation is recognized from the lower end of the linear segment and is used together with the Terzaghi theoretical time factor of 0.286 and the maximum drainage distance of the oedometer specimen to determine the coefficient of consolidation. A large amount of the oedometer coefficient of consolidation data obtained from the simplified t1/2 method are in good agreement with those from the Taylor t1/2 method and are within one to two times those from the Casagrande logarithm of t method.Key words: laboratory tests, coefficient of consolidation, curve fitting method, settlement.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.193 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations29
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Geotechnical JournalSame topicGrouting, Rheology, and Soil MechanicsFrench-language works237,207