Cyclic liquefaction of loose gassy sand
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Gas can be found in many soils, but none more common than in seabed soils. Gas-charged sediments are known to be widely distributed throughout the world's oceans. Numerous research programs have studied saturated soil response to cyclic loading; however, little is known about the behavior of gassy soils subjected to cyclic loading. The response of loose gassy specimens subjected to cyclic loading was studied in a laboratory program. Triaxial tests were performed on specimens of reconstituted Ottawa sand prepared to various gas contents and densities. The specimens were consolidated and then sheared under undrained cyclic loading. Gas content was measured at the beginning and end of each test using time domain reflectometry. The response of the gassy specimens has been shown to be influenced by the soil state and grain characteristics and the intensity, duration, and frequency of the cyclic loading. The propensity of a soil to liquefy is represented by a cyclic resistance ratio, defined as the cyclic stress ratio to cause liquefaction, or to cause a specified amount of strain. The results of this laboratory program show that the cyclic resistance ratio increases as gas content and density increase. The laboratory study demonstrates that the cyclic liquefaction potential of a soil is reduced by the addition of gas; however, soils containing some gas may still experience cyclic liquefaction provided they are sufficiently loose.Key words: triaxial testing, cyclic liquefaction, Ottawa sand, gassy, unsaturated.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".