Strength verification of stabilized soil–cement columns: a laboratory investigation of the push-in resistance test (PIRT)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The push-in resistance test (PIRT) is an in situ means of verifying the strength of stabilized soil columns. During the test, a winged penetrometer penetrates the stabilized column at a constant rate and the column strength is estimated from the recorded probing resistance using a bearing capacity factor (N). While N values between 8 and 20 (although typically between 8 and 15) are quoted in the literature (based almost exclusively on empirical and Scandinavian experience), there have been few field tests and no laboratory investigations aimed at investigating the value of N and the factors upon which it depends, thereby limiting international confidence in the method. This paper presents the findings of a unique laboratory-scale PIRT series conducted at the National University of Ireland, Galway (NUI Galway). The development of appropriate column construction and testing methods is discussed. The results of 11 PIRT tests on pre-drilled stabilized columns with unconfined compression strengths (UCS) from 150 to over 800 kPa are reported, as well as those of a complementary cone-only series of tests to assess additional frictional forces acting on the penetrometer. Appropriate corrections to the data for temperature and time consistency between the probing forces and UCS values are discussed. Test results indicate that the strength of the column has a mild influence on the N value. Further investigation of this finding is recommended at both laboratory and field scales.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".