Evaluation of CPT-Based Empirical Characterization Methods for Sands
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As a result of the difficulties in obtaining undisturbed samples in cohessionlesss soils, CPT-based empirical correlations often developed from calibration chamber experiments are widely used for determining many soil parameters for geotechnical investigation. This paper describes the application of 19 reduced-scale calibration chamber cone penetration tests for evaluating empirical correlations for predicting relative density, unit weight, and constrained modulus for loose to medium-dense sands. A 6 mm-diameter subtraction cone with an apex angle of 60o and a net area ratio of 0.75 is used in the laboratory tests. Cone tip resistance, sleeve friction, and pore pressure at the cone shoulder are measured. No excess pore pressure developed in the CPT experiments on the fine sand. Empirical correlations are suggested for predicting the dry and saturated unit weights of silica sands. Existing empirical correlations display a very wide range of estimates for sand relative density and often very different from the experiments of this study. However, the constrained moduli exhibit a better agreement with an empirical correlation.
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 | 0.004 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".