Behaviour of a loose silty sand under static and cyclic loading conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent years, considerable progress have been made in the study of liquefaction and flow failures with the introduction of the notion of steady-state of deformation and “collapse” envelope. These concepts are increasingly used in seismic stability analysis of slopes or embankments. However, as most of these studies were carried out on clean sands in the triaxial apparatus, one may question the general applicability of these results to practical conditions as several factors such as anisotropy, fines content, undrained strength anisotropy, boundary deformation conditions, stress history, etc. may play an important role. In this paper, the behaviour of the same soil, a loose silty sand, is compared for different loading and testing conditions: drained and undrained triaxial compression tests, drained and constant volume monotonic and cyclic direct simple shear (DSS) tests. Results allow to identify similarities and differences, in terms of undrained initial and steady-state shear strength and modes of undrained failure between triaxial and DSS test conditions and show that liquefaction in DSS cyclic tests is an instability triggered by shear failure developing once the friction corresponding to the characteristic envelope, as identified in the monotonic test, has been mobilized.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".