MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2057420459 · doi:10.1139/t03-077

Modeling rate effects in undrained loading of sands

2004· article· en· W2057420459 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Nathalie Boukpeti, Z. Mróz, A. Drescher

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil Mechanics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsViscoplasticityConstitutive equationGeotechnical engineeringCreepStrain rateLiquefactionDeformation (meteorology)Triaxial shear testGeologyStress (linguistics)Materials scienceWork (physics)Compression (physics)MechanicsStructural engineeringEngineeringShear (geology)Finite element methodComposite materialPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present technical note extends the previous work by the authors concerned with formulation of a constitutive model of elastoplastic response of sands (Superior sand model) and its application to the analyses of static liquefaction and instability states in triaxial compression and extension occurring in the undrained deformation of saturated granular materials. To account for time-dependent behavior and strain rate effects, an elastic, viscoplastic extension of the model to triaxial compression is proposed. The constitutive equations derived are used to predict the model response in different loading histories. In particular, strain rate and stress rate effects and undrained creep deformation for specified stress components are discussed in detail. Comparison of model predictions with available experimental data also is provided.Key words: saturated sand, constitutive model, elastic–viscoplastic behavior.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.185
Teacher spread0.178 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations8
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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