Liquefaction and post-liquefaction assessment of lightly cemented sands
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Post-liquefaction response of lightly cemented sands during an earthquake may change and become similar to uncemented sands due to bonding breakage. In the current study, the effect of degree of cementation on liquefaction and post-liquefaction behaviour of lightly cemented sands was studied through a series of cyclic and monotonic triaxial tests. Portland cement with high early strength and Sydney sand were used to reconstitute the lightly cemented specimens with unconfined compression strength ranging from 25 to 220 kPa. A series of multi-stage soil element tests including stress-controlled cyclic loading events with different amplitudes and post-cyclic undrained monotonic shearing tests were carried out on both uncemented and cemented specimens. Furthermore, a series of undrained monotonic shearing tests without cyclic loading history on different types of specimens was conducted to investigate the effect of cyclic loading history on the post-cyclic response of the specimens. The results show that residual excess pore-water pressure is correlated to the cyclic degradation of lightly cemented sands during cyclic loading. In addition, optical microstructure images of the cemented specimens after liquefaction showed that a major proportion of cementation bonds remained unbroken, which resulted in a superior post-liquefaction response with respect to initial stiffness and shear modulus in comparison to the uncemented sand.
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".