MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2969143549 · doi:10.1139/cgj-2018-0893

Evaluation of a simplified soil constitutive model considering implied strength and pore-water pressure generation for one-dimensional (1D) seismic site response

2019· article· en· W2969143549 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Xuan Mei, Scott M. Olson, Youssef M. A. Hashash

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil Mechanics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCentrifugePore water pressureGeotechnical engineeringLiquefactionStiffnessShear (geology)Constitutive equationSoil waterTriaxial shear testGeologySimple shearMaterials scienceFinite element methodSoil scienceStructural engineeringComposite materialEngineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pore-water pressure (PWP) generation can lead to soil softening and liquefaction of sandy soils during earthquakes, with potential influence on site response and seismic design. The authors evaluated the generalized quadratic/hyperbolic (GQ/H) constitutive model, which captures small-strain stiffness, large-strain shear strength, and is coupled with a widely used cyclic strain–based PWP generation model (termed GQ/H+u). A suite of cyclic direct simple shear tests with a range of relative densities (∼30%–80%) and effective vertical stresses (∼25–200 kPa) and dynamic centrifuge tests with liquefiable sands were used to evaluate the ability of the GQ/H+u model to simulate cyclic soil behavior. Results indicate that GQ/H+u provides reasonable estimates of PWP increase during cyclic shear, with differences between measured and computed excess PWP ratios (r u ) for both element and centrifuge tests generally smaller than 0.1. Computed spectral accelerations are comparable to centrifuge test measurements, with almost no bias at medium to long periods (T > 0.4 s) when the computed maximum shear strain (γ max ) was smaller than the limit shear strain (γ limit ). When computed r u > 0.8 and computed γ max > γ limit , spectral accelerations may be underestimated at both short and long periods as dilative behavior is not captured by GQ/H+u.

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)0.002
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 score0.081
Threshold uncertainty score0.784

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.199 · 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

Citations22
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Geotechnical JournalSame topicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil MechanicsFrench-language works237,207