Effect of OCR on sampling disturbance of cohesive soils and evaluation of laboratory reconsolidation procedures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The paper presents the results of an experimental investigation of sampling disturbance in cohesive soils through single-element triaxial tests on resedimented Boston blue clay (RBBC). The first part of the paper discusses the effect of the overconsolidation ratio (OCR) (18) of the soil on postdisturbance compression and undrained shear behavior. The results demonstrate that sensitivity to disturbance decreases markedly with OCR. It is also found that for the medium-sensitivity soil tested, the estimate of the preconsolidation pressure is not significantly affected by OCR. The second part of the paper discusses laboratory reconsolidation procedures. For OCR1 RBBC, the recompression method is not effective in recovering the stressstrain behavior of the soil and, for greater disturbance, provides an increasingly unsafe estimate of the strength. For OCR4, provided the reconsolidation path reproduces the path that occurred in the field, this procedure succeeds in recovering the intact stressstrainstrength behavior of the soil. SHANSEP reconsolidation was investigated for normally consolidated RBBC only. For modest levels of disturbance, this is an effective means of evaluating both the stressstrain and the strength behavior of the soil. For greater levels of disturbance, the stressstrain behavior is not fully recovered, but the method continues to provide conservative estimates of the undrained strength.Key words: sampling disturbance, clays, overconsolidation ratio, undrained strength, recompression, SHANSEP.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".