MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2016519409 · doi:10.1139/t02-066

A model for static liquefaction in triaxial compression and extension

2002· article· en· W2016519409 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Nathalie Boukpeti, Z. Mróz, A. Drescher

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil Mechanics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLiquefactionGeotechnical engineeringTriaxial shear testConstitutive equationIsotropyHardening (computing)Monotonic functionYield (engineering)Soil liquefactionPlasticityInstabilitySofteningGeologyMaterials scienceMechanicsStructural engineeringEngineeringShear (geology)MathematicsComposite materialFinite element methodPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The response of the elastoplastic refined Superior sand constitutive model in undrained triaxial compression and extension tests is presented. The model is aimed at realistic simulation of liquefaction occurring in loose, saturated, granular materials under monotonic static loading. The yield surface introduced previously in the original Superior sand model is modified, and a non-associated flow rule is used. The isotropic hardening–softening is related to plastic deformation and distance to a reference yield curve. The refined model accounts for the different response of materials with different deposition densities. The model prediction of undrained triaxial compression and extension tests is compared with experimental results. The higher tendency for liquefaction response in extension is well described. Instability and phase-transformation states also are discussed, and the energy of liquefaction is quantified.Key words: static liquefaction, constitutive model, triaxial tests, liquefaction energy.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.685
Threshold uncertainty score0.526

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.185 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations24
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Geotechnical JournalSame topicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil MechanicsFrench-language works237,207