Liquefaction Potential of Saturated Sand Reinforced by Cement-Grouted Micropiles: An Evolutionary Approach Based on Shaking Table Tests
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cement-grouted injections are increasingly employed as a countermeasure material against liquefaction in active seismic areas; however, there is no methodology to thoroughly and directly evaluate the liquefaction potential of saturated sand materials reinforced by the cement grout-injected micropiles. To this end, first, a series of 1 g shaking table model tests are conducted. Time histories of pore water pressures, excess pore water pressure ratios (ru), and the number of required cycles (Npeak) to liquefy the soil are obtained and modified lower and upper boundaries are suggested for the potential of liquefaction of both pure and grout-reinforced sand. Next, adopting genetic programming and the least square method in the framework of the evolutionary polynomial regression technique, high-accuracy predictive equations are developed for the estimation of rumax. Based on the results of a three-dimensional, graphical, multiple-variable parametric (MVP) analysis, and introducing the concept of the critical, boundary inclination angle, the inclination of micropiles is shown to be more effective in view of liquefaction resistivity for loose sands. Due to a lower critical boundary inclination angle, the applicability range for inclining micropiles is narrower for the medium-dense sands. MVP analyses show that the effects of a decreasing spacing ratio on decreasing rumax are amplified while micropiles are inclined.
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".