Evaluation of static liquefaction potential of silty sand slopes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The mechanism of instability in granular soils is explained and its requirement as a forerunner to the liquefaction of level or sloping ground is described. Case histories support the observation that it is silty sands that liquefy under static and a majority of earthquake-induced conditions. Recent experiments show that clean sands do not behave similarly to silty sands. Tests on loose, silty sand indicate a “reverse” behavior with respect to confining pressure and this violates the basic assumption that loose, silty sands behave similarly to loose, clean sands. Strong correlations between fines content, compressibility, and liquefaction potential are often found for these soils. A procedure for the analysis and evaluation of static liquefaction of slopes of fine sand and silt, such as submarine slopes, mine tailings, and spoil heaps, is presented. It involves determination of the region of instability in stress space in which potential liquefaction may be initiated and determination of the state of stress in the slope. A method of finding the state of stress is developed to predict the zone of potential liquefaction in simple slopes. Trigger mechanisms for initiation of instability followed by soil liquefaction are reviewed and mechanisms of soil strengthening are discussed.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 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".