A comparison of small strain stiffness in till as measured by seismic refraction and barometric loading response
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Soil stiffness can vary over several orders of magnitude depending on the actual range of strain imposed by testing, or as a result of operational strains in geotechnical structures. Soil stiffness changes rapidly with strain level at low strain levels (0.01–0.1%) and the variation with strain is not linear. Characterization of the in situ small strain stiffness of stiff soils is important in geotechnical design; however, analyses of the mechanical behaviour of these soils is confounded by stiffness values that vary with strain level. Stiff till cuttings are susceptible to progressive failure as a result of strain softening. As a consequence, the evolution of stiffness during progressive failure is both a key parameter in characterizing pre-failure slope deformations and a key diagnostic of softening. Changes in strength (due to softening) should be reflected in commensurate temporal and spatial changes in stiffness; consequently, real-time, in situ measurements of stiffness would better define the progression of softening. Seismic surveys, which create small compression and shear strains, have been used to estimate in situ small strain elastic moduli. These spatially extensive measurements can be correlated to temporal variations in stiffness from the monitoring of barometric loading efficiency. In this latter method, the pore pressure response of a grouted (sealed) piezometer to barometric pressure fluctuations is used to measure the compressibility (stiffness) of the formation. This article summarizes the results of field trials within a cutting in stiff till in Northern Ireland in which these two techniques were used to characterize small strain stiffness.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".