MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2805561037 · doi:10.1520/gtj20170347

Theoretical DMT Interpretation in Sensitive Clays

2018· article· en· W2805561037 on OpenAlexaffabout
Vincenzo Silvestri

Bibliographic record

VenueGeotechnical Testing Journal · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSoil and Unsaturated Flow
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeotechnical engineeringInterpretation (philosophy)GeologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Closed-form solutions are deduced in the present article for the stresses and displacements generated during installation of the flat dilatometer blade in undrained clay, by assuming that the soil behaves ideally elastic first and elastic-plastic second. In the first case, the installation of the dilatometer is modeled as the expansion of a long elliptical cavity, commencing from a vertical line crack under uniform internal pressure. Computations indicate that the horizontal tangential stress may reach very high negative or tensile values in areas located along the edges of the elliptical cavity. In these areas, the maximum shear stresses also attain very high levels. As a consequence, either fractures or plastic deformations would be expected to develop in such areas. In the second case, the installation of the dilatometer is modeled as the expansion of a long cylindrical cavity, in which the applied pressure is transmitted through an internal hydrostatic core. Outside the core, the clay behaves as a linearly elastic perfectly plastic (Tresca) material. The computed ultimate radial pressures compare well with published data obtained by means of finite element analyses. Finally, the theoretical solutions are applied to field tests carried out in a sensitive clay deposit of eastern Canada. The results show that the clay suffers severe remolding following the insertion of the dilatometer.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.837
Threshold uncertainty score0.399

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.222 · 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

Citations6
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeotechnical Testing JournalSame topicSoil and Unsaturated FlowFrench-language works237,207