Liquefaction triggering and post-triggering behavior of biocemented loose sand
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Biocementation is a biomediated ground improvement technique that can improve the engineering behavior of granular soils. The process has received significant attention as an earthquake-induced liquefaction mitigation technique; however, critical gaps have remained in our understanding of how liquefaction behaviors may shift with differences in loading magnitudes and cementation levels. In this study, direct simple shear tests were performed to examine the undrained shearing behaviors of biocemented loose Ottawa F-65 sand prepared to varying cementation levels corresponding to V s increases up to 523 m/s. Significant increases in liquefaction triggering resistances were observed with added cementation across a broad range of loading magnitudes (CSR = 0.1–1.75) and exceeded improvements obtainable through densification alone. Following triggering, modest improvements in post-triggering strain accumulation and reconsolidation behaviors were observed that could be primarily attributed to the densification of specimens from added mineral solids at low cementation levels (Δ V s < 150 m/s). At higher cementation magnitudes, however, post-triggering behavioral enhancements exceeded those that would be expected from densification alone. Outcomes from this study improve our understanding of the liquefaction behaviors of biocemented soils, the metrics by which these behaviors can be effectively characterized, and the mechanisms responsible for behavioral enhancements, ultimately furthering our understanding of how the technology may be employed for liquefaction mitigation.
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.
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) | 0.002 | 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 it