MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Pore Pressure and Kσ Evaluation at High Overburden Pressure under Field Drainage Conditions. II: Additional Interpretation

2020· article· en· W3038488168 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Tarek Abdoun, Min Ni, R. Dobry, Kaveh H. Zehtab, Alan B. Marr, Waleed El-Sekelly

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil Mechanics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeotechnical engineeringPore water pressureCentrifugeOverburdenOverburden pressureConsolidation (business)GeologyLiquefactionEffective stressLateral earth pressure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article is the second of two companion papers studying the effect of a high overburden pressure on the liquefaction behavior of saturated Ottawa sand. A series of four centrifuge experiments were conducted simulating a 5-m prototype layer of this sand in the field, having two relative densities and subjected to overburden effective pressures, σv0′, of ~100 and 600 kPa (1 and 6 atm). The layer was on a rigid impervious base and could drain freely at the top. This was supplemented by undrained stress-controlled and strain-controlled cyclic triaxial tests on the same sand consolidated at 1 and 6 atm. The laboratory undrained overburden pressure factor at 6 atm obtained from the triaxial tests on loose sand, Kσ=0.85, is consistent with the state of practice (SoP), which assumes that Kσ<1.0 and Kσ decreases with σv0′. However, in the centrifuge experiments and σv0′=6 atm, the field Kσ=1.28 for loose sand and Kσ>1.15 for dense sand. The discrepancy is due to more significant partial drainage during shaking in the 6-atm centrifuge models. Although the excess pore pressures at the bottom of the sand layer seem to have been close to undrained in the four experiments, they were much smaller at shallower elevations in the 6-atm tests compared with the 1-atm tests. Further analysis is conducted by evaluation in the four centrifuge experiments of the coefficient of consolidation, cv, during the dissipation phase. This is done using the recorded pore pressure and settlement data. It is concluded that cv was two to four times greater during dissipation in the 6-atm centrifuge tests. The reason is the increase—also by a factor of two to three—of the drained constrained volumetric stiffness of the sand, M′=1/mv, when going from 1 to 6 atm. This finding plus other data from the literature suggest that for a range of sands, layer thicknesses, field conditions, earthquake shaking, and values of σv0′, both M′ and cv may increase proportionally to √σv0′, with the field Kσ>1.0, and with Kσ increasing instead of decreasing with σv0′.

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 score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.825

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.177
Teacher spread0.172 · 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

Citations19
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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