MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2899883495 · doi:10.1061/9780784481486.013

Comparing Shear Response of Dense Sands from Centrifuge and Direct Simple Shear Tests with Published Correlations

2018· article· en· W2899883495 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Lopamudra Bhaumik, Alfonso Cerna-Díaz, Ozgun A. Numanoglu, Scott M. Olson, Cassandra J. Rutherford, Youssef M. A. Hashash, Thomas J. Weaver

Bibliographic record

VenueGeotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics V · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil Mechanics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersU.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
KeywordsCentrifugeShear modulusSimple shearShear (geology)Geotechnical engineeringGeologyShear stressDirect shear testPure shearCritical resolved shear stressShear rateMaterials scienceComposite materialPetrologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The mode of shear in the field induced by a seismic wave is commonly assumed to be best captured by the cyclic direct simple shear (DSS) test. To investigate this assumption, this work uses an inverse analysis technique to estimate shear stress (τ)-shear strain (γ) from dynamic centrifuge tests on very dense Ottawa 40/70 sand (relative density, Dr ~ 95%). This back-calculated stress-strain response is compared to τ-γ response: (1) measured in drained and undrained monotonic and cyclic DSS tests on dry and saturated medium dense to very dense (Dr ~ 51 to 95%) sands; and (2) inferred from existing shear modulus reduction correlations available in the literature. The results indicate that the DSS response is softer to shear strains up to about 0.4%, while existing correlations based on resonant column-torsional shear tests capture the back-calculated τ-γ response from the centrifuge tests.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.060
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 spread0.180 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations2
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics VSame topicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil MechanicsFrench-language works237,207