Effects of boundary conditions and partial drainage on cyclic simple shear test results—a numerical study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Owing to imperfect boundary conditions in laboratory soil tests and the possibility of water diffusion inside the soil specimen in undrained tests, the assumption of uniform stress/strain over the sample is not valid. This study presents a qualitative assessment of the effects of non‐uniformities in stresses and strains, as well as effects of water diffusion within the soil sample on the global results of undrained cyclic simple shear tests. The possible implications of those phenomena on the results of liquefaction strength assessment are also discussed. A state‐of‐the‐art finite element code for transient analysis of multi‐phase systems is used to compare results of the so‐called ‘element tests’ (numerical constitutive experiments assuming uniform stress/strain/pore pressure distribution throughout the sample) with results of actual simulations of undrained cyclic simple shear tests using a finite element mesh and realistic boundary conditions. The finite element simulations are performed under various conditions, covering the entire range of practical situations: (1) perfectly drained soil specimen with constant volume, (2) perfectly undrained specimen, and (3) undrained test with possibility of water diffusion within the sample. The results presented here are restricted to strain‐driven tests performed for a loose uniform fine sand with relative densityDr=40%. Effects of system compliance in undrained laboratory simple shear tests are not investigated here. Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".