Effect of side shear zones on T-bar penetration resistance in clay—upper bound analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The full-flow T-bar penetrometer has been widely used in laboratory tests and field site investigations to obtain the undrained strength of seabed sediments. The soil failure mechanism of a full-flow T-bar penetrometer at deep penetration is consistent with that of the laterally loaded circular pile in cohesive soil, where the soil flows around the cylinder from the bottom to the top. On each side of the T-bar, however, two side shear zones exist between the full-flow zone and the adjacent soil, which may generate additional energy dissipation and thus contribute to the resistance. This study provides significant insight into the analysis of the contribution of the side shear zones to the resistance of the T-bar penetrometer in undrained clay. According to the full-flow failure mechanism presented by Randolph and Houlsby (1989), a quantitative relation between the resistance of the T-bar penetrometer and the soil undrained shear strength is derived using the upper bound theorem. The resistance factor N s is introduced to revise the traditional calculation method. Theoretical results demonstrate that the resistance factor N s increases from 1.666 for a smooth interface to 3.099 for a rough interface, and are further validated against a series of numerical simulation results from finite element analyses.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".