Influence of placement method on the cone penetration resistance of hydraulically placed sand fills
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The reclamation for the new airport at Chek Lap Kok in Hong Kong included the placement of a substantial volume of sand fill by various hydraulic placement techniques, which resulted in a wide range of as-placed densities of the sand fill. This paper described the use of cone penetration tests (CPT) on the evaluation of the possible ranges of density achievable by various hydraulic placement methods adopted in the construction of the new airport. The results of the CPT indicated that the placement technique is one of the most important factors in controlling the as-placed density of hydraulically placed sand fill. There is a marked contrast in cone tip resistance (and the associated relative density) profiles for the sand fills formed by subaerial and subaqueous placement methods, in which the cone tip resistance of the sand fill formed by subaerial placement is substantially higher than that of the sand fill formed by subaequeous placement. The results confirm that dense sand fill cannot be formed by subaqueous placement methods. The weakest zone is generally located just beneath the water level where fill is placed by subaqueous discharge.Key words: sand, hydraulic fill, cone penetration test, calibration chamber test, in situ density.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".