MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2956018835 · doi:10.1051/e3sconf/20199208001

Behaviour of a loose silty sand under static and cyclic loading conditions

2019· article· en· W2956018835 on OpenAlexafffund
Denis LeBœuf

Bibliographic record

VenueE3S Web of Conferences · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil Mechanics
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersUniversité de Sherbrooke
KeywordsLiquefactionGeotechnical engineeringTriaxial shear testAnisotropyGeologyMonotonic functionInstabilitySimple shearShear (geology)Stress pathFlow (mathematics)MechanicsMathematicsPetrology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.422
Threshold uncertainty score0.347

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.213 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations3
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueE3S Web of ConferencesSame topicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil MechanicsFrench-language works237,207