Catalogue of scaling laws and similitude questions in geotechnical centrifuge modelling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Some forty years ago, when geotechnical centrifuge modelling had been rediscovered and was being developed once more after the early work of Phillips (1869), only a few studies were devoted to the questions and concerns about scaling laws and similitude conditions. During the first decades, it was relatively easy for researchers to keep themselves informed about the main outcomes of these studies and to take them into account when designing new centrifuge model tests. This is obviously not true today following the welcome growth in terms of the large number of centrifuge facilities now in operation around the world. It is increasingly difficult, but yet absolutely essential, to know about the relevant developments concerning studies into the scaling laws and, furthermore, into the limits of the domains of the use of centrifuge modelling. On the other hand, new media offers a significant opportunity to provide this resource to the physical modelling community. New topics are investigated by many researchers as they become more inventive in the ways in which geotechnical centrifuge modelling is applied to solve pressing problems within geotechnical engineering, and across other disciplines too. Innovative work presenting comparisons between centrifuge model tests and true scale tests are providing original data on the validity of the scaling factors. During the TC2 meeting at St John’s (Canada) in July 2002, the first author, J. Garnier (LCPC), suggested making an inventory of the scaling laws and similitude questions relating to centrifuge modelling. The aim of this catalogue is to present the questions already solved (with inclusion of the references of the papers where the results have been presented) and the unsolved problems (on which research should continue). The first draft of this catalogue is now available and it is hoped that it will become a useful tool for scientists and researchers involved in centrifuge modelling. Of course, this catalogue will be regularly updated, every four years during the International Conferences on Physical Modelling in Geotechnics. The latest version of the catalogue is available on the TC2 website ( www.tc2.civil.uwa.edu.au ).
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 | 0.005 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.020 | 0.021 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.030 | 0.015 |
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".