Comparison of Soil Properties obtained from In-Situ Tests and Laboratory: Case Study of shallow Foundation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In geotechnical engineering, in-situ penetration tests are widely used for site investigation to support analysis and design.The Standard Penetration Test (SPT) is the most common in-situ test for soil investigations in sandy soils.When it is necessary to expand the scope of investigation, geotechnical engineers typically supplement with a cheaper and quicker method such as the Cone Penetration Test (CPT) and flat dilatometer test (DMT).These tests are routinely used in geotechnical evaluations and are considered adequate for detailing soil profiles and determining soil properties.However, the correlation between the results of CPT, DMT, and soil properties is not well established yet.In this work, ground characterization and estimation of soil properties based on the combined use of in-situ tests included SPT, CPT, and DMT along with laboratory tests were conducted and evaluated.The evaluation of in-situ tests in terms of soil type, unit weight, elastic modulus, and friction angle was compared with laboratory results.To achieve the presented objectives, field and laboratory investigations were performed on a case study of shallow foundation design using general bearing capacity equation.For satisfactory design, the design must satisfy the shear and settlement criteria.These two criteria are independent to each other and must be satisfied.As results, the findings from in-situ and laboratory tests did not agree in terms of settlement calculations.The predicted bearing capacity of the case study estimated size against general failure from 1 m to 1.3m.However, the estimated settlements exceed the allowable limits, and therefore the foundation dimensions had to be suitably modified to settlement criteria.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".