Use of laboratory data to confirm yield and liquefied strength ratio concepts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A laboratory database of triaxial compression test results was collected to examine the use of strength ratios for liquefaction analysis. Specifically, the database was used to: (i) validate the yield strength ratio concept (or yield friction angle); (ii) demonstrate the parallelism of the consolidation line and steady state line of many sandy soils; and (iii) validate the liquefied strength ratio concept. The yield strength ratio of contractive sandy soils in triaxial compression ranges from approximately 0.29 to 0.42 (corresponding to yield friction angles of 16°23°), while the yield strength ratio from flow failure case histories (which correspond approximately to direct simple shear conditions) ranges from 0.23 to 0.31 (or yield friction angles of 13°17°). As expected, the yield friction angle is greatest in triaxial compression, smaller in direct simple shear, and likely smallest in triaxial extension. The steady state line and consolidation line of many contractive sandy soils are parallel for a wide range effective stresses, steady state line slopes, fines contents, and grain sizes and shapes that are applicable to many civil engineering structures. As such, the liquefied strength ratio is a constant for many sandy soils deposited in a consistent manner. The liquefied strength ratio is inversely related to state parameter and ranges from approximately 0.02 to 0.22 in laboratory triaxial compression tests. Flow failure case histories fall near the middle of this range.Key words: liquefaction, liquefied shear strength, yield shear strength, collapse surface, steady state line, penetration resistance.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".