Compressibility behaviour of remoulded, fine-grained soils and correlation with index properties
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Correlating engineering properties with index properties has assumed greater significance in the recent past in the field of geotechnical engineering. Although attempts have been made in the past to correlate compressibility with various index properties individually, all the properties affecting compressibility behaviour have not been considered together in any single study to examine which index property of the soil correlates best with compressibility behaviour, especially within a set of test results. In the present study, 10 soils covering a sufficiently wide range of liquid limit, plastic limit, and shrinkage limit were selected and conventional consolidation tests were carried out starting with their initial water contents almost equal to their respective liquid limits. The compressibility behaviour is vastly different for pairs of soils having nearly the same liquid limit, but different plasticity characteristics. The relationship between void ratio and consolidation pressure is more closely related to the shrinkage index (shrinkage index = liquid limit - shrinkage limit) than to the plasticity index. Wide variations are seen with the liquid limit. For the soils investigated, the compression index relates better with the shrinkage index than with the plasticity index or liquid limit.Key words: Atterberg limits, classification, clays, compressibility, laboratory tests.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".