Constitutive modeling of gassy sand behaviour
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The behaviour of loose gassy sand was investigated with the use of a constitutive model. The constitutive model was modified from an existing model that focused on assessing the liquefaction of loose sands over a wide range of states and loading conditions. The modifications involved taking into account the compressibility and solubility of the pore gas and liquids. Hilf's equation, which calculates the pore-pressure change in a gassy or unsaturated soil subjected to an applied total stress, was incorporated into the model formulation. The initial degree of saturation is needed for model prediction, and the coefficient of volumetric solubility (Henry's constant) was introduced as a new model parameter. The modified model was used to predict the effect of gas on the undrained static behaviour of loose sand. The laboratory results of saturated specimens were modeled, and the predicted and observed behaviours were found to agree well. Results from gassy specimens were also predicted, and again the model predictions matched the test results. The model was used to confirm that gas has the effect of decreasing, but not eliminating, the susceptibility of loose sand to flow liquefaction. The major shortcoming of the modified model was its inability to predict the slight increase in effective normal stress that was observed in the initial stages of all the undrained triaxial tests. This shortcoming resulted in differences between the predicted and observed behaviour especially of strain-hardening specimens.Key words: gassy soil, liquefaction, constitutive modeling, triaxial 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".