Physics-informed probabilistic models for peak pore pressure and shear strain in layered, liquefiable deposits
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper probabilistic models are developed for estimating the peak excess pore pressure ratio ([Formula: see text]) and peak shear strain ([Formula: see text]), which control liquefaction triggering, in layered granular soils under earthquake loading. The models are developed using non-linear regression applied to a database of 167 352 results from one-dimensional, non-linear, effective stress, site response analyses. A pseudo-parametric regression strategy is adopted to account for the theoretical upper bound on [Formula: see text] at a value of 1. The models include the influence of variables that are specific to the individual layer, to the soil profile and to the ground motion, as well as layer-to-layer interaction and the relationship between [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text]. The variability around model predictions is decomposed, and the relative contributions of layer-, profile- and ground motion-specific parameters are evaluated. Epistemic uncertainty related to soil model selection, calibration and validation is also addressed. The total uncertainty around model predictions ranges from 0·5 to 1·6 in natural log units, with smaller values for scenarios that are of particular engineering interest (e.g. high [Formula: see text]). Finally, the proposed models are used to estimate the probability of liquefaction triggering for case studies from the 2010–2011 Canterbury earthquake sequence. The results are shown to compare favourably with existing deterministic and probabilistic methods in terms of their ability to distinguish between cases where liquefaction was observed in both the Darfield and Christchurch earthquakes and those where no liquefaction was observed in either event.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".