Evaluation of small-strain shear modulus of Fontainebleau sand based on innovative pressuremeter probe testing in a calibration chamber
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents an experimental study aimed at evaluating the measuring capabilities of an innovative monocellular pressuremeter probe, the Monocell Francis Cour probe, based on calibration testing in the laboratory. The originality of the tested equipment is to allow evaluation of soil properties in both small- and large-strain domains, without the need of sophisticated point displacement measuring arms. This paper focuses on the evaluation of small-strain shear modulus G of Fontainebleau sand, NE34, based on tests carried out with this specific pressuremeter probe. Shear modulus values obtained with this probe are then compared with values resulting from more classical elementary tests, showing a fairly good consistency. It is shown, with satisfactory agreement, that it is possible to quantify the influence of the density index of the sand as well as the influence of the mean effective stress around the probe on the shear modulus, based on the analysis of specific unload−reload loops performed during the test. The experimental programme carried out under well-controlled laboratory conditions allows a validation to be proposed for a method of derivation of the shear modulus of sand at small strain levels using this prototype pressuremeter.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".