Prediction of shear strain and excess pore water pressure response in liquefiable sands under cyclic loading using deep learning model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, an attempt is made to predict the shear strain and excess pore water pressure ratio (ru) response of liquefiable sands using deep learning (DL) models. The DL model, such as long short-term memory (LSTM), is considered for predicting the response. The inputs of the models are basic soil properties, including applied shear stress time history, existing initial vertical effective stress, relative density, coefficient of uniformity, and mean grain size of the soil. The databases considered for the DL model training and testing are the cyclic laboratory test data of Ottawa F-65 and Nevada sands. For ru model training, suitable inputs are considered based on the available domain knowledge on the generation of excess pore water pressure during liquefaction in sands. Shear strain is also an essential input parameter to predict the excess pore water pressure ratio during liquefaction. Therefore, an additional shear strain model is developed to predict the shear strain time history for the testing datasets using the same training datasets. Then this shear strain model is used along with the ru model to predict the excess pore water pressure response for separate testing datasets. The predicted responses of shear strain and excess pore water pressure ratio agree well with the actual responses for testing datasets and perform well in terms of the evaluation metric. However, the models are trained using the limited datasets of specific soil types and their performance has to be tested for various global soil types under different loading conditions (e.g., transient loading). The study concluded with recommendations for improving the DL models for the cyclic response of other sands for seismic stability assessments.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".