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, G max , and suction were measured on samples statically compacted at an identical dry density, but different remoulding water contents. The changes in G max reveal the existence of a characteristic water content corresponding to the maximum G max . 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 G max 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 G max 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 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".