MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2999567367 · doi:10.1061/9780784482100.019

Pore Water Response of Seabed Soils during Multi-Hazards: Model Validation

2019· article· en· W2999567367 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ying Qing Qiu, H. Benjamin Mason, Michael H. Scott

Bibliographic record

VenueGeo-Congress 2019 · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil Mechanics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSoil waterSeabedEnvironmental scienceGeologySoil scienceOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Coastal structures are prone to multi-hazard loading; for instance, earthquake ground shaking, and subsequent tsunami loading. The instability of seabed sand caused by residual and momentary liquefaction, as well as large bed shear stresses, are primary concerns for engineers. The foregoing soil response is related to the soil’s pore water pressure response during and after earthquake shaking, i.e., before the tsunami attack. Our objective is to develop and validate a one-dimensional numerical model in OpenSees to simulate the excess pore water generation and dissipation during and immediately after earthquake loading. The model consists of four node elements and the pressure dependent multi-yield material model, and we validate the model through comparisons with LEAP-GWU-2015 centrifuge test data. In addition, we perform a convergence study to examine sensitivity to mesh size, time step, and convergence criteria. The results show that the numerical model captures the magnitude of the excess pore water pressure and its long-term asymptotic dissipation response well, and the permeability has a large impact on the excess pore water pressure response, as expected. Our work gives reference parameters for the Ottawa-F65 sand used in the LEAP-GWU-2015 centrifuge tests. The results indicate that our model can be adopted for future research on the liquefaction potential for coastal structures during complex, multi-hazard loading scenarios.

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 score0.084
Threshold uncertainty score0.792

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.197 · 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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeo-Congress 2019Same topicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil MechanicsFrench-language works237,207