Characteristics of solid–liquid phase transformation of saturated coral sand subjected to various patterns of cyclic loading
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study conducts a series of undrained cyclic shear tests on saturated coral sand with different initial relative densities ( Dr) subjected to a 90° jump rotation of the principal stress with various initial orientations. Considering liquefiable coral sand as a fluid, an important finding is that the variation in the apparent viscosity with the number of cycles is significantly affected by Dr, the effective mean principal stress ( [Formula: see text] ), cyclic stress ratio, cyclic loading path, and cyclic loading frequency. The average flow coefficient (κ) is introduced to describe the fluidity of saturated coral sand under cyclic loading by considering the variation in the shape of the stress–strain rate curve. A positive exponential correlation is observed between κ and the excess pore water pressure (EPWP) ratio ( ru) under the given cyclic loading modes. Another significant finding is that the solid–liquid phase change time is the turning point of the apparent viscosity and the average flow coefficient gradients with ru. The inversion point’s EPWP ratio is approximately 0.9, defined as the EPWP ratio during the solid–liquid phase transformation ( ruth). The ruth value is not affected by cyclic loading mode, [Formula: see text] , and Dr.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".