Settlement Rate Increase in Organic Soils Following Cyclic Loading
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Postshaking settlements observed during centrifuge tests of model levees resting atop soft compressible peat are compared with numerical settlement solutions. Two large-scale (9 m) tests and one small-scale (1 m) test are analyzed. The models included extensive instrumentation consisting of pore pressure sensors, accelerometers, bender elements, and displacement transducers to measure levee response during and after the application of scaled ground motions at the container base. Postcyclic settlement records suggested an increase in settlement rates within peat on cyclic loading compared with preseismic settlements due to the combined effects of excess pore pressure generation and secondary compression. The observed settlements were compared with the predictions of a one-dimensional nonlinear consolidation code that follows an implicit finite difference formulation. The code includes nonlinear compressibility and permeability properties and models secondary compression strain rate as a function of soil state rather than of time. Secondary compression was found to be the largest contributor to levee settlement. Further, cyclic straining was found to increase the secondary compression rate after earthquake shaking. Incorporating secondary compression reset into settlement predictions resulted in close agreement with measurements, whereas failing to consider secondary compression reset resulted in substantial underprediction of experimental settlement records.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".