Liquefaction Study of Heterogeneous Sand: Centrifuge
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract From past numerical research and small scale laboratory tests, it has been observed that more excess pore water pressure (EPWP) is generated during earthquakes in a heterogeneous sand deposit than in the corresponding homogeneous sand with relative density equal to the average relative density of the heterogeneous sand. This interesting phenomenon is investigated here in large scale experiments using geotechnical centrifuge modeling techniques. A series of liquefaction tests have been conducted at C-CORE’s geotechnical centrifuge facility: Two on variable sand and one on uniform sand deposits. A one level frame structure resting on two strip footings was also placed on that sand deposit to study the effect of soil variability on building foundations. Experimental results such as accelerations, EPWPs and settlements were monitored and measured throughout the tests. Recorded results support the conclusion of previous research that more EPWP is generated in heterogeneous sand deposits than in the corresponding homogeneous sand. The liquefaction mechanism of heterogeneous sands leading to this phenomenon is discussed in this paper.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| 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".