Intrinsic compressibility of laterites and lateritic soils
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Laterites and lateritic soils, prevalent in tropical and subtropical climates, have growing applications in earthwork construction. They usually present unique compression properties compared to conventional clays. Therefore, a thorough understanding of their intrinsic compressibility is crucial. This paper reports on modified oedometer tests conducted on reconstituted samples of four distinct laterites and lateritic soils with varying initial water contents. In addition, scanning electron microscopy (SEM) was utilized to identify the microstructural features to reveal the mechanisms of intrinsic compression. The results demonstrate that intrinsic compression curves of reconstituted laterites and lateritic soils align with Burland’s normalization framework. However, they exhibit a higher void ratio at an effective vertical stress of 100 kPa ( e* 100) and a lower compression index ( C* c) compared to traditional clays; therefore, existing formulas for calculating e* 100 and C* c are inapplicable to laterites and lateritic soils. The SEM analysis revealed that sesquioxide interacts with soil minerals, resulting in a porous structure and robust inter-unit cementation. This unique microstructure contributes to the observed intrinsic constants of compressibility, e* 100 and C* c. Based on the experimental observations, new empirical equations are introduced to evaluate e* 100 and C* c in laterites and lateritic soils. The experimental results elucidate the role of sesquioxide in inherent compressibility and improve our understanding of compressibility characteristics that are unique to laterites and lateritic soils.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".