Liquefied strength ratio with stress densification and low stresses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents a comparison of four assumptions or approaches for using a liquefied shear strength ratio for sandy soils in cases where there has been a large increase in effective vertical stress, e.g., structure raising or remedial measure, that is outside the effective stresses of the case histories used to develop the empirical liquefied shear strength ratio and penetration resistance correlations. Changes in penetration resistance due to an increase in effective vertical stress are used in an example to illustrate the following four assumptions for determining a liquefied shear strength ratio in such a post-liquefaction stability analysis: (1) initial effective vertical stress and initial penetration resistance; (2) initial effective vertical stress and the expected increase in penetration resistance due to the increase in effective vertical stress; (3) final effective vertical stress and initial penetration resistance, which is suggested; and (4) final effective vertical stress and final penetration resistance. This paper also presents suggestions for using a liquefied strength ratio at low effective vertical stresses, e.g., approaching the toe of a dam or embankment, in a post-liquefaction stability analysis.
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".