Modeling cyclic liquefaction and system response of a sheet-pile supported liquefiable deposit: Insights from LEAP-2022
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study presents numerical simulations of 13 prototype-scale centrifuge tests from the LEAP-2022 project, employing the SANISAND-MSf plasticity model. Calibrated based on data from 56 cyclic direct simple shear tests, the objective was to evaluate the model’s ability to capture cyclic liquefaction-related phenomena comprehensively. The adopted calibration strategy balanced the considerations for the challenges posed by asymmetric cyclic shear stress conditions. Two-dimensional plane-strain numerical models were constructed in OpenSees, simulating a sheet-pile wall supporting medium-dense liquefiable sand under seismic excitations. Results demonstrate the model’s proficiency in predicting excess porewater pressure evolution, spectral acceleration, shake-induced settlement, and sheet-pile head displacement. The study also provides insights into deviations in sheet-pile head displacements between experiments and simulations. Challenges in simulating tests EU-1 and KAIST-2 were identified and addressed, with the overprediction in EU-1 attributed to an overestimation of the pace and extent of cyclic liquefaction and in KAIST-2 to the sensitivity of large cyclic deformations to changes in relative density. The findings offer valuable insights for refining constitutive models, underscoring the importance of considering diverse loading conditions to better align with observed system responses.
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".