A NUMERICAL STUDY OF CHAMBER SIZE AND BOUNDARY EFFECTS ON CPT TIP RESISTANCE IN NC SAND
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A numerical modeling procedure was used to quantify calibration chamber size and boundary e ects for cone penetration testing in sand. In the numerical analyses, chamber diameter and boundary conditions were varied to investigate the e ects of chamber size and boundary conditions on cone tip resistance. These analyses show that, for loose sand, a chamber-tocone diameter ratio of 33 is sucient for the boundaries to have no in uence on the cone tip measurements. However, for very dense sand, the numerical analyses show that the chamberto- cone diameter ratio should be more than 100 to ensure that boundaries have no in uence on cone tip measurements. Numerical analysis indicates that, not only the sand relative density but its stress state is also a signi cant factor in in uencing the chamber size e ects. The results of the numerical analyses were compared to existing empirically based relationships. Suggestions are provided to reduce the e ects of chamber size and boundaries on cone tip resistance measurements in sand.
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.
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 it