Estimating relative density from shallow depth CPTs in normally consolidated and overconsolidated siliceous sand
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Current interpretation of relative density ( Dr) based on cone penetration test (CPT) end resistance ( qc) data in sand relies on empirical expressions established from calibration chamber studies for which a deep failure penetration mechanism is attained. These expressions are mainly based on stress normalised qc data. Previous studies have highlighted the importance of performing the normalisation procedure with respect to the mean effective stress ( p′) in overconsolidated (OC) sand deposits instead of the vertical effective stress ( σ′v) that has been used in normally consolidated deposits. Due to a large variation in the coefficient of earth pressure at rest ( K0), on which p′ depends, in the uppermost 3–5 m of OC sand, a recent study has demonstrated a rigorous unified approach for estimating a varying K0 with depth. However, the surficial shallow failure penetration effects are not accounted for, and consequently, interpretation of the upper 0.5–1.5 m of sand is still erroneous. This depth range is very important for low-stress geotechnical applications such as offshore flowlines and mudmats. With a reinterpretation of previously published data, a new global model is presented that potentially enables estimation of Dr from shallow CPTs in siliceous sand by taking into account both the shallow failure penetration effects (important in the uppermost 0.5–1.5 m) as well as the varying K0 with depth for OC sand (important in the uppermost 3–5 m). However, the new model needs future calibration with controlled laboratory testing.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".