MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3020517398 · doi:10.1139/cgj-2019-0417

Centrifuge modelling of static liquefaction in submarine slopes: scaling law dilemma

2020· article· en· W3020517398 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Weiyuan Zhang, Amin Askarinejad

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil Mechanics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersChina Scholarship CouncilTechnische Universiteit Delft
KeywordsCentrifugeLiquefactionGeotechnical engineeringScalingViscosityGeologyOffshore geotechnical engineeringMechanicsPore water pressurePhysicsThermodynamicsMathematicsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The scaling laws for the centrifuge modelling of the initiation and propagation of static liquefaction in submerged slopes are investigated in this paper. A theoretical model is developed to analytically determine the scaling factor of fluid viscosity in simulating the onset of static liquefaction by detailed analysis of the hydromechanical processes at the grain scale. Based on this, a fluid with a viscosity of [Formula: see text]-times that of water ([Formula: see text]-fluid) is suggested, where N is the geometrical scaling factor in centrifuge modelling. A fluid with a viscosity of N-times that of water (N-fluid) was adopted for simulating dynamic events in the centrifuge; N-fluid is used and suggested by previous researchers. Centrifuge tests were designed to examine and verify the scaling factors for pore fluid viscosity in simulating the onset of static liquefaction and the post-liquefaction behaviour of subaqueous landslides. These tests were performed at 10g, 30g, and 50g conditions, with [Formula: see text]-fluid, N-fluid or water, where g is the Earth’s gravitational acceleration. Results confirm that the correct scaling factors (prototype/model) for pore fluid viscosity are [Formula: see text] and 1/N for investigating the onset of static liquefaction and the post-failure behaviour of the submarine slopes, respectively.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.186
Teacher spread0.166 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations12
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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