In situ strength characterisation of peat and organic soil using full-flow penetrometers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Full-flow penetrometers have been shown to overcome problems experienced with the cone penetrometer when measuring resistance in very soft peat and organic soil, and give a much more uniform measure of resistance than the cone in fibrous peat. However, at present there is no guidance on the interpretation of strength parameters in these soils using the T-bar and ball. This paper examines the results of tests using these devices at two research sites in the Netherlands in conjunction with high-quality Sherbrooke sampling for laboratory testing. In fibrous peat, the T-bar and ball provided a more uniform measure of resistance with a lower degree of scatter than the cone. The in situ testing results have been compared with the laboratory tests to assess the range of resistance factors relating penetration resistance to the undrained shear strength (s u ) and have been shown to occupy a lower range of values than the cone penetrometer. However, penetration tests in these soils are likely to be influenced by partial drainage effects and this should be considered during testing and the subsequent interpretation of results. Recommendations are made for the use of full-flow penetrometers to obtain strength parameters in these soils.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".