Numerical Simulations of LEAP Dynamic Centrifuge Model Tests for Response of Liquefiable Sloping Ground
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents numerical simulations (modified Type-B) related to LEAP-UCD-2017 (Liquefaction Experiments and Analysis Projects) dynamic centrifuge model tests for a liquefiable sloping ground conducted by various institutions. The numerical simulations are performed using a pressure-dependent constitutive model implemented with the characteristics of dilatancy and cyclic mobility. The soil parameters are determined based on a series of available stress-controlled cyclic triaxial tests during the Type-A simulation phase for matching the liquefaction strength curves of Ottawa F-65 sand. The computational framework for the dynamic response analysis is discussed. Computed results are presented for the selected centrifuge experiments (modified Type-B simulations). Measured time histories (e.g., displacement, acceleration and excess pore pressure) of these experiments are reasonably captured. Comparisons between the numerical simulations and measured results showed that the pressure-dependent constitutive model as well as the overall employed computational framework have the potential to predict the response of the liquefiable sloping ground, and subsequently realistically evaluate the performance of an equivalent soil system subjected to seismically induced liquefaction.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".