MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400186774 · doi:10.1061/jggefk.gteng-12247

A Unified Model of Cyclic Shear–Volume Coupling and Excess Pore Water Pressure Generation for Sandy Soils under Various Cyclic Loading Patterns

2024· article· en· W4400186774 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Guoxing Chen, You Qin, Qi Wu, Xiaoqiang Gu, C. Hsein Juang

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil Mechanics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPore water pressureGeotechnical engineeringSoil waterShear (geology)GeologyVolume (thermodynamics)Environmental scienceMaterials scienceSoil sciencePetrologyThermodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Accurate prediction of excess pore water pressure (EPWP) generation in saturated sandy soils remains one of the most challenging issues in sandy site responses to strong earthquakes and extreme marine environments. This paper presents experimental results of undrained and drained multidirectional cyclic hollow cylinder (MCHC) tests on saturated coral sandy soils under various cyclic loadings. The results show that threshold generalized shear strain γga,th, below which EPWP and volumetric strain can be neglected, is an inherent property depending only on the soil type and initial state. Furthermore, there exists a virtually unique form of relationships between the generalized shear strain amplitude (γga) and the cumulative dissipated energy per unit volume of soil (Wc) at different relative density (Dr), irrespective of drainage conditions and cyclic loading conditions. These findings highlight the fundamental mechanism for cyclic deformation behavior and the uniqueness of correlations among rup (peak EPWP ratio), εvp (peak volumetric strain), and γga of saturated sandy soil at the similar Dr, regardless of cyclic loading conditions. Based on these findings, a novel unified model of γga-based cyclic shear–volume coupling and EPWP generation is established, which is independent of cyclic loading conditions over a wide loading frequency range. Then the applicability of the proposed model is validated by the experimental data of the same tested coral sandy soil and siliceous Ottawa sand, as well as the data of siliceous fine sands in previous work. It is found that the proposed model surpasses the existing strain- and stress-based models in accurately predicting EPWP generation under complex cyclic loadings, which can offer new insights into the mechanisms of the EPWP generation in saturated sandy soils.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.242
Threshold uncertainty score0.888

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.194
Teacher spread0.183 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations23
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental EngineeringSame topicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil MechanicsFrench-language works237,207