Indication of Clay Structure Restoration in Laboratory Testing Using Bender Element Measurements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For soft soils, sampling methods, specimen preparation and subsequent test results are all affected by the degree of soil structure and level of destructuration occurring during these phases. Consolidation has been shown to be a primary means for restoring a soft soil's structure, or an approximation of that structure. The amount of this restoration can be quantified by comparing the measured shear wave velocity values before and after various test phases. Shear waves can be generated and received by bender elements that are composed of piezoceramic plates. When bender elements are inserted into a triaxial testing system, they provide non-destructive testing during an ongoing triaxial test. In this research, bender elements are implemented in an automated triaxial apparatus using methods developed by Landon (2004). Two different soil types, one sampled using conventional tube sampling and one using Sherbrooke-type block sampling, were tested to assess how reconsolidation affects the structure of the soil, by comparing bender element data. A MatLab® based program was used to actuate the excitation of benders, and to measure and analyze the resulting shear wave transmission. By comparing shear wave velocity results at various stages of the test, the change in the soil structure as a result of those test stages can be inferred. The results show that, based on bender element shear wave velocity measurements, the back pressure and consolidation phases help to restore the shear wave velocity values and the shearing phase only marginally degrades the structure, even at relatively high, end-of-shear strains.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".