MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2781534692 · doi:10.1520/gtj20170030

Constant Rate of Strain Consolidation Testing of Saturated Cohesive Soils Without Back Pressure Saturation

2018· article· en· W2781534692 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Melissa E. Landon, Chistopher Marchetti, Don J. DeGroot

Bibliographic record

VenueGeotechnical Testing Journal · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground Structures
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConsolidation (business)Geotechnical engineeringSaturation (graph theory)Degree of saturationSoil waterMaterials scienceGeologyPore water pressureSoil scienceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract ASTM D4186/D4186M-12, Standard Test Method for One-Dimensional Consolidation Properties of Saturated Cohesive Soils Using Controlled-Strain Loading, requires back pressure saturation for all specimens to accurately measure pore fluid pressure and flow behavior. Constant rate of strain (CRS) consolidation testing performed without back pressure saturation has the potential to provide significant time and cost savings, as the need for costly back pressure saturation equipment and the time required for specimen back pressure saturation would be eliminated. The results of one-dimensional CRS consolidation comparison tests performed with and without back pressure saturation on high quality Sherbrooke block and 76-mm diameter modified tube specimens and on reconstituted specimens of low overconsolidation ratio, soft, saturated clays are presented herein. Comparison of the compression curves from specimens tested with and without back pressure saturation, especially at stresses greater than the estimated in situ vertical effective stress, show good agreement. Flow behavior between the two types of specimens is more erratic at low stresses but becomes more comparable as the effective stress level increases. It can be concluded from the results that accurate CRS consolidation stress–strain behavior can be measured for saturated specimens tested without back pressure saturation for stresses greater than the in situ vertical effective stress.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.460
Threshold uncertainty score0.905

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.217 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeotechnical Testing JournalSame topicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground StructuresFrench-language works237,207