Bender elements and system identification for estimation of <i>V</i><sub><scp>s</scp></sub>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Accurate estimation of shear wave velocity is necessary in most geotechnical earthquake engineering applications. This paper details two different methodologies implemented for the estimation of the shear wave velocity profile of soil deposits. The first implemented method employs bender elements, whereas the second relies on a system identification technique and the use of acceleration recordings. In order to compare the two techniques, two centrifuge experiments were conducted using saturated Ottawa F#55 sand in a one-dimensional laminar container. The sand was deposited at void ratios 0·723 and 0·625, respectively. Shear wave velocity profiles obtained using both techniques were compared. These profiles were also compared to those documented in the literature. The results agree well with each other and with the values from the literature. The matching results support the validity of using both methods as a means of estimating the shear wave velocities in centrifuge models as well as in full-scale testing.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".