Dilatancy characterization of sands using the resistivity cone penetration test
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
The determination of in situ dilatancy in sands has been a difficult and elusive objective in site investigations. Difficulty with sampling, as well as problems with extrapolating laboratory results to field performance have caused geotechnical engineers to place increased reliance on in situ tests. One such test which is gaining acceptance in the geotechnical profession is the cone penetration test (CPT). As with other in situ tests, the CPT can be used to predict dilatancy behaviour of sands based on empirical correlations. As with most empirical methods, correlations are often site specific and sensitive to variables that are not readily measurable. A new, geophysically based, technique has been developed to determine dilatancy characteristics of sands in situ. The resistivity cone penetration test (RCPT) employs a standard 10 sq cm piezo cone, paired with a module which measures soil resisitivity at different electrode spacings. The resistivity is recorded in a semi—continuous manner along with regular CPT data. The resistivity measurements at different electrode spacings can be used to infer sand densities at different distances from the penetrating probe. By comparing the resistivity close to the probe with the resistivity further away from the probe, it is possible to observe the shear induced volume change caused by penetration of the probe. This approach is analytical and does not require water sampling, nor is it site specific. Data are presented to illustrate the effectiveness of this technique in determining in situ dilatancy of sands. The technique is compared to existing empirically based approaches for prediction of dilatancy. Finally, possible future applications of the RCPT are discussed.
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