MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Probabilistic Liquefaction Triggering and Manifestation Models Based on Cumulative Absolute Velocity

2021· article· en· W4200142201 on OpenAlexaff
Zach Bullock, Shideh Dashti, Abbie B. Liel, Keith Porter, Brett W. Maurer

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil Mechanics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLiquefactionGeotechnical engineeringStandard deviationSoil liquefactionCone penetration testGeologyPore water pressureSoil scienceIntensity (physics)StiffnessMathematicsStatisticsStructural engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study proposes the capacity cumulative absolute velocity (CAVc) as a novel measure for the resistance of granular soils to earthquake-induced liquefaction. The CAVc is defined as the cumulative absolute velocity (CAV) needed to generate a threshold excess pore pressure ratio (ru) value at a specified depth in a layer of liquefiable soil. A probabilistic model for predicting CAVc corresponding to ru values between 0.5 and 1.0 is developed using a database of over 280,000 estimates of CAVc from one-dimensional (1D), nonlinear, effective stress site-response analyses. These models provide CAVc as a function of depth, the presence and location of low-permeability interlayers in the soil profile, and soil stiffness (as reflected in the normalized cone tip resistance from cone penetration test results). The standard deviation around the model’s estimates of CAVc ranges from 0.59 natural log units for an ru threshold of 1.0 to 0.83 natural log units for an ru threshold of 0.5. Correlation models are provided for predicting CAVc throughout the depth of a soil profile, across multiple ru thresholds, or both. Finally, CAVc is implemented in a proposed modification of the liquefaction potential index (LPICAV). The new index is validated using data from three earthquakes in Canterbury, New Zealand, and has a slightly improved predictive capability compared to existing indices, while making use of a relatively predictable intensity measure (i.e., CAV of the outcropping rock motion); this intensity measure is also compatible with performance-based methods for predicting liquefaction consequences. Finally, a guide for model implementation and examples of various applications are provided.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Simulation or modelinglow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Simulation or modelinghigh
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.180
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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

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

Citations10
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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