Miniature Cone Penetration Test on Loose Sand
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Considering the difficulties associated with preparing loose sand samples in large calibration chambers and wide area of research on the behavior of loose sands, miniature calibration chamber experiments are used to perform cone penetration tests on soils in different states. A miniature cone calibration chamber has been designed and developed in this study. Nineteen tests have been performed on Ottawa sand and the results are compared to the available data in the literature. The accuracy of the results is validated by comparing the results with the suggested rate for the cone resistance in sands in literature. More specifically, results are compared with the results of the large calibration chamber tests performed on the same soil at University of Florida. Results are in a very good agreement with the literature and data available from large calibration chambers. Different soil identification systems are used to further validate and compare the results. Results of the performed tests are presented and discussed in terms of the repeatability of the developed apparatus, the effect of penetration rate, boundary condition effect, scale effect, particle crushing, overburden stress normalization and verification of the measurements. Some available procedures to perform a CPT-based liquefaction analysis including liquefaction susceptibility, triggering and post-liquefaction strength analysis are evaluated using the laboratory miniature CPT experiments performed in the current study. Some of the well-established equations to estimate soil properties required for liquefaction studies are also evaluated using the laboratory miniature CPT experiments performed in the current study. The existing methods for estimating state parameter from cone penetration test results are reviewed and an evaluation of the performance of the existing methods using the laboratory miniature CPT experiments performed in the current study is presented.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".