A Comparative Study on Methods of Estimating Liquefaction for Diyala Soil
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The phenomenon of liquefaction is one of the most important problems in engineering projects. It occurs in saturated sandy soils during the occurrence of earthquakes. Methods based on the standard penetration test (SPT) were developed to calculate the liquefaction potential according to the seismic loads. These methods have been developed and updated over time by some researchers. This paper analyses the comparison between methods of calculating liquefaction potential. The case study that was selected for the analysis of the comparison methods is Diyala Governorate soil. The methods that have been chosen for making a comparative analysis are the Japanese method, National Centre for Earthquake Engineering Research 1997 (NCEER) workshop, Task Force Report 2007 (Vancouver) and Boulanger and Idriss 2014. The analysis of results stated that the Boulanger and Idriss method is considered more suitable than others for calculating the potential for liquefaction in Diyala Governorate soil. It is found that the Boulanger and Idriss method has higher safety factor than the two methods (80.7% from Vancouver and 38.8% from the NCEER workshop) and less than the Japanese method
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".