Bibliographic record
Abstract
Virtually all investigation of liquefaction has used undrained tests, and it has become common to represent the undrained strength in terms of a collapse surface or collapse stress ratio described by an effective friction angle. A difficulty with undrained tests is that they only allow observation of the interaction of elastic and plastic strain because of the imposed boundary condition (i.e., no drainage or zero volume change), precluding a proper understanding of an effective stress criterion for maximum undrained strength. Drained triaxial tests do not suffer from this shortcoming, and stressdilatancy of dense sands in drained shear is well established as a fundamental aspect of sand behaviour, based on micromechanical considerations. It is particularly interesting to consider the stressdilatancy behaviour of very loose sands in the context of soil liquefaction. Although there are some data in the literature on loose sand behaviour in drained triaxial compression, the majority of data are actually for sands markedly denser than sands showing static liquefaction in undrained tests. This paper therefore reports some laboratory testing of very loose sands, together with comparative undrained liquefaction data, and compares the loose behaviour to that of dense sand. These data are reduced to stressdilatancy form so that the fundamental aspects of loose soil behaviour can be seen and compared to flow rules used in constitutive models. The stressdilatancy of very loose sand shows no limiting stress ratio markedly less than that of the critical state. Moreover, the stressdilatancy trends of very loose sand are the same as those of dense sand. There is no evidence of "structural collapse" of the particulate arrangement of very loose sands, contrary to speculation associated with collapse surfaces in the literature. Explanations of sand liquefaction must seek other physical explanations of the soil behaviour.Key words: sand, constitutive relations, plasticity, liquefaction.
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".