MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Large-Scale Modeling of Preshaking Effect on Liquefaction Resistance, Shear Wave Velocity, and CPT Tip Resistance of Clean Sand

2019· article· en· W2964211428 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
R. Dobry, S. Thevanayagam, Waleed El-Sekelly, Tarek Abdoun, Q. Huang

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil Mechanics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLiquefactionGeotechnical engineeringEarthquake shaking tableGeologyCone penetration testPenetration testSoil liquefactionAftershockShear (geology)SeismologyPetrology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The effect of preshaking and repeated liquefaction on liquefaction resistance was studied in a large-scale shaking table experiment, in which a sequence of 51 shakings was applied to the base of a 5-m uniform deposit of saturated clean Ottawa sand. Three event types were used in a very intense repeated pattern: mild preshaking Events A, stronger preshaking Events B, and extensive liquefaction Events C, with each Event C typically liquefying most or all of the deposit. Relative density, cone penetration test (CPT) tip resistance, and liquefaction resistance to Events A and B were found to increase significantly throughout the 51-shaking sequence, with the shear wave velocity (Vs) increasing slightly. However, the CPT tip resistance and liquefaction resistance decreased temporarily after each Event C, recovering rapidly with additional preshaking—presumably due to a decrease and subsequent increase in the soil lateral stresses. The results for the different shakings were compared with available CPT- and Vs-based field liquefaction charts, with and without accounting for the fact that the soil deposit was much younger than the case histories covered by the charts (age factor). The liquefaction response for Events A, B, and C was reasonably well predicted by the CPT chart when the age factor was considered, including Events A immediately after liquefaction by an Event C. The implications of the research were discussed for the geologic age, preshaking and liquefaction effects observed in the field, including reliquefaction response of the same site by milder aftershocks after the main earthquake shock.

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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.890

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.171
Teacher spread0.167 · 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

Citations27
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental EngineeringSame topicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil MechanicsFrench-language works237,207