Compacted soil behaviour through changes of density, suction, and stiffness of soils with remoulding water content
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To better understand the overall hydromechanical behaviour of interlayer soil, the compaction behaviour of one of the two components — the portion of fines (<4 mm) that is sensitive to water content changes — was investigated. The standard Proctor compaction curves were first determined for the soils. Then, the maximum shear modulus, Gmax, and suction were measured on samples statically compacted at an identical dry density, but different remoulding water contents. The changes in Gmax reveal the existence of a characteristic water content corresponding to the maximum Gmax. The results also show that this characteristic water content increases with the soil plasticity, being similar to the variation trend of optimum water content with soil plasticity. A bimodal pattern was observed from the plot of total suction ψ versus the slope of water content w–log(ψ) curve. The suction corresponding to the maximum Gmax is close to the lowest point between the two peaks in the ψ–dw/dlog(ψ) curve. A reasonable explanation was attempted for the correspondence between the “optimum water content” defined by the maximum value of Gmax and the corresponding suction. The difference between the static and dynamic compactions was also explained in terms of suction values.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".