Methods used to determine maximum and minimum dry unit weights of sand: Is there a need for a new standard?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Known challenges exist with maximum (γ dmax ) and minimum (γ dmin ) dry unit weight measurements; the respective dry unit weight results depend very much on the method or standard used. A laboratory testing programme was completed to systematically determine and compare γ dmax and γ dmin values derived for six different sand types by using different methods. The tested sands contained a wide variety of mineralogical and fines contents. The γ dmax and γ dmin determinations were performed according to the following methods: British Standards Institution (BS) standards; American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) standards; Deutsches Institut für Normung (DIN) standards; Dansk Geoteknisk Forening (DGF) guidelines; Norwegian Geotechnical Institute (NGI), Geolabs, and Fugro proprietary methods. Differences in testing procedures, material requirements for testing, and the effects of soil degradation during testing introduce challenges and large differences in γ dmax and γ dmin values for each of the six sand types were observed. Therefore, it is concluded that there is a need for the development of new standards for a robust determination of γ dmax and γ dmin values. Specifically, a standard for determining γ dmax is required to consistently obtain results at the upper bound of dry unit weight values for the likely range of sands — without crushing the sand grains.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".