Cyclic loading response of loose air-pluviated Fraser River sand for validation of numerical models simulating centrifuge tests
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cyclic loading response of loose Fraser River sand was investigated, as input to numerical simulation of centrifuge physical models, using constant-volume direct simple shear tests conducted with and without initial static shear stress condition. Although the observed trends in mechanical response were similar, air-pluviated specimens were more susceptible to liquefaction under cyclic loading than their water-pluviated counterparts. Densification due to increasing confining stress (stress densification) significantly increased the cyclic resistance of loose air-pluviated sand, with strong implications for the interpretation of observations from centrifuge testing. The stress densification effect, however, was not prominent in the case of water-pluviated specimens. The differences arising from the two specimen reconstitution methods can be attributed to the differences in particle structure and highlight the importance of fabric effects in the assessment of the mechanical response of sands. The initial static shear stresses appear to reduce the cyclic shear resistance of loose air-pluviated sand in simple shear loading, in contrast to the increases in resistance reported on the basis of data from triaxial testing. Data from laboratory element tests that closely mimic the soil fabric and loading modes of the centrifuge specimens are essential for meaningful validation of numerical models.Key words: liquefaction of sands, air-pluviation, cyclic loading, direct simple shear testing, specimen preparation, fabric.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".