Estimation of <i>in situ</i> stresses using anisotropic elasticity and suction measurements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sampling and specimen preparation produce changes in mean effective stresses and pore water pressures, even with ‘perfect sampling’. The paper takes an existing simplified three-parameter cross-anisotropic elastic model and uses it to model these changes. The required ratio of cross-anisotropic parameters J/3G* can be obtained from standard CIU triaxial tests. If measurements are also made of suctions in unloaded specimens in the laboratory, then a combination of J/3G*, the measured suction, and the effective overburden pressure permits an estimation of the horizontal effective pressure and the K 0 ‘at rest’ coefficient. This can be helpful in numerical modelling that needs to start from in situ conditions, and in planning pressure levels for reconsolidation of clay specimens in the laboratory. Tests were done on Belfast Upper Boulder Clay from a depth of 28 m. Values of horizontal in situ effective stress estimated from these measurements compare favorably with conventional estimates of the ‘at rest’ coefficient K 0 and the overconsolidation ratio. Estimates of horizontal stress in London Clay were made using published data and the results compared with actual measurements. Again reasonable agreement was obtained.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".