Influence of state and compressibility on liquefied strength of sands
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Critical-state soil mechanics is a useful framework to understand sand behavior. In this paper, a relationship is developed for estimating undrained critical shear strength of sands based on the critical-state framework. The application of this relationship is demonstrated by comparison with laboratory test results and sand liquefied strength from field liquefaction flow failure case histories. Using this relationship, the effects of effective stress variation and density on undrained critical shear strength are studied for different combinations of critical-state line parameters corresponding to several reference sands. The parametric study indicates that depending on sand void ratio, undrained critical shear strength may increase, remain the same or decrease as sand shearing–compressibility (represented by the slope of the critical-state line) increases. The underlying mechanisms of field failures in dense sands and reverse behavior of compressible sands are explained through this relationship. It is suggested that the critical-state parameter alone is insufficient for describing the behavior of liquefiable sands and sand shearing–compressibility should be also taken into account for estimating undrained shear strength corresponding to the changes in density and effective confining stress.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".