Quality control of fine-grained embankments using penetration tests
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The compaction control of earth works is an essential task in geotechnical engineering. In order to build more sustainably and to reduce project costs, fine-grained materials are more often used for embankment construction nowadays. The quality control of compacted soil layers is usually defined in terms of deformation moduli obtained from static and dynamic plate load tests or based on the degree of compaction, which is generally related to the Proctor density. Penetration tests, such as cone penetration tests (CPT), seismic flat dilatometer tests (SDMT) or dynamic probings (medium heavy dynamic probings (DPM)), show a potential for assessing the compaction along vertical profiles but no standardized quality criteria have been elaborated yet. The present work investigates the effects of different water contents and degrees of soil stabilization on results of CPT, SDMT, DPM, plate load tests and Proctor tests for an 8 m high trial embankment, characterized by a clayey to silty material. CPT and DMT results were found to strongly correlate with deformation moduli of static and dynamic plate load tests, enabling the definition of new quality criteria for compaction control.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".