MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2331485493 · doi:10.1061/9780784413272.004

Instrumented Becker Penetration Test for Improved Characterization of Gravelly Deposits

2014· article· en· W2331485493 on OpenAlexaff
Mason Ghafghazi, Aravinthan Thurairajah, Jason T. DeJong, Daniel W. Wilson, Richard J. Armstrong

Bibliographic record

VenueGeo-Congress 2014 Technical Papers · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground Structures
Canadian institutionsGolder Associates (Canada)
FundersDepartment of Water ResourcesCalifornia Department of Transportation
KeywordsHammerDrillPenetration (warfare)Geotechnical engineeringStandard penetration testPenetration testMechanicsAccelerationCentrifugeMaterials scienceGeologyStructural engineeringPhysicsLiquefactionEngineeringMechanical engineeringClassical mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Becker penetration test (BPT) is a widely used tool for characterization of gravelly soils, especially for liquefaction potential assessment. BPT results are affected by the variability of the energy transferred from the hammer to the drill string and the distribution of the forces and deformations along the shaft and at the tip. Interpretation of BPT data is particularly challenging in dam foundations where the shaft resistance of the thick dense shell can be significant compared with the tip resistance of underlying loose foundation layers. Current interpretation methods that utilize above-ground PDA-type or bounce chamber pressure measurements have had limited success in accurately separating the shaft and tip resistance and thus detecting potentially weak problematic layers at depth. A Becker drill string was instrumented to allow measurement of the dynamic force and acceleration at the tip in addition to the conventional above-ground location. This provided direct measurements of the energy transferred to the drill string by the hammer and the actual energy that is delivered to the soil below the driving shoe. Blow counts are corrected using the energy measured at the tip and a correlation between this normalized blow count Nb30 and SPT N60 is explored.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.004
GPT teacher head0.187
Teacher spread0.183 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeo-Congress 2014 Technical PapersSame topicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground StructuresFrench-language works237,207