A note on falling-head and rising-tail permeability tests on saturated soils in centrifuge
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The falling-head and rising-tail method for permeability test allows for both inflow and outflow rates to be conveniently measured. This helps to detect any possible swelling or consolidation of specimen during testing and to identify the continuity of flow of water through the specimen. It has been widely adopted to measure the hydraulic conductivity of saturated porous media of extremely low permeability, such as hydraulic barrier soil materials. Centrifuge permeameter test with this method has recently been devised to accelerate water flow and reduce the time needed for testing. The accompanying equation for calculating hydraulic conductivity is, however, found to be simplified because it was formulated by idealizing such a variable-head test as multiple segmental constant-head tests. In this paper, a new generalized equation is established based strictly on the variable head. Moreover, based on curve matching between the rates of flow into and out of the soil specimen, an approach is also proposed to identify the continuity state of flow. The data relevant to this state are extracted for performing the calculation of hydraulic conductivity. The practical application of the proposed equation and its associated approach is illustrated through a reanalysis of recently published experimental data in the literature.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".