MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399712266 · doi:10.3208/jgssp.v10.kl-2-03

Complications in Addressing Liquefaction Vulnerability in Stratified Soils from Building to Cluster to Community

2024· article· en· W4399712266 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Shideh Dashti, Yu‐Wei Hwang, Caroline Bessette

Bibliographic record

VenueJapanese Geotechnical Society Special Publication · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil Stabilization
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Colorado BoulderColorado State UniversityNational Science Foundation
KeywordsLiquefactionGeotechnical engineeringVulnerability (computing)Soil liquefactionSoil waterGeologyCluster (spacecraft)Civil engineeringEnvironmental scienceEngineeringSoil scienceComputer scienceComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The existing engineering methodologies for liquefaction mitigation rely on free-field triggering in uniformly layered granular soil deposits. These methods routinely ignore cross-layer interactions in stratified deposits, consequences of softening and various mechanisms of mitigation on building performance, or interactions between and among structures in close proximity of each other. In this paper, through an experimental-numerical study, we show that these methods are unreliable, jeopardizing our ability to assess and mitigate liquefaction vulnerability from building to cluster, and to community scales. Fully-coupled, 3D, dynamic finite element analyses, validated with centrifuge experiments, show that combining ground reinforcement with drainage and densification (e.g., through installation of dense granular columns) can improve foundation’s settlement, but not necessarily to acceptable levels. To achieve desired levels of reduction in settlement, it is critical to minimize the likelihood of clogging in such drains, particularly in the presence of silt interlayers. These methods, however, may increase foundation’s tilt potential, which must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Unsatisfactory tilt is often uneconomical to repair, which may lead to the decision to demolish or relocate. And this engineering demand parameter (EDP) becomes particularly difficult to improve in urban settings and in stratified and non-uniform deposits. The combined influence if seismic coupling and stratigraphic variability on mitigation efficacy is shown to be significant in terms of foundation tilt, spectral accelerations, and flexural drifts experienced within the superstructure of both mitigated and unmitigated neighbors. These effects are notable for spacing-to-foundation width-ratios (S/W) as large as 1.0, which are common in cities. Additional measures and technologies may be needed to reduce tilt to acceptable levels in closely-spaced cluster configurations and realistically stratified deposits, while simultaneously strengthening both the ground and structures at an area-level and in a cost-effective and sustainable manner.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.086
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.259 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJapanese Geotechnical Society Special PublicationSame topicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil StabilizationFrench-language works237,207