Liquefaction Resistance of Clean and Nonplastic Silty Sands Based on Cone Penetration Resistance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Liquefaction of granular soil deposits is one of the major causes of loss resulting from earthquakes. The accuracy in the assessment of the likelihood of liquefaction at a site affects the safety and economy of the design. In this paper, curves of cyclic resistance ratio (CRR) versus cone penetration test (CPT) stress-normalized cone resistance qc1 are developed from a combination of analysis and laboratory testing. The approach consists of two steps: (1) determination of the CRR as a function of relative density from cyclic triaxial tests performed on samples isotropically consolidated to 100 kPa; and (2) estimation of the stress-normalized cone resistance qc1 for the relative densities at which the soil liquefaction tests were performed. A well-tested penetration resistance analysis based on cavity expansion analysis was used to calculate qc1 for the various soil densities. A set of 64 cyclic triaxial tests were performed on specimens of Ottawa sand with nonplastic silt content in the range of 0–15% by weight, and relative densities from loose to dense for each gradation, to establish the relationship of the CRR to the soil state and fines content. The resulting (CRR)7.5-qc1 relationship for clean sand is consistent with widely accepted empirical relationships. The (CRR)7.5-qc1 relationships for the silty sands depend on the relative effect of silt content on the CRR and qc1. It is shown that the cone resistance increases at a higher rate with increasing silt content than does liquefaction resistance, shifting the (CRR)7.5-qc1 curves to the right. The (CRR)7.5-qc1 curves proposed for both clean and silty sands are consistent with field observations.
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 | 0.001 | 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".