Liquefaction Characteristics of Sand under Complex Seismic Loading Paths
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effects of phase shift (δ) between compression and shear waves, and consolidation stress ratio (Kc) on the liquefaction resistance of sand under simultaneous compression and shear wave loading is investigated using a hollow cylinder torsional shear apparatus. The differences caused by prior stress history (assessed using drained versus undrained preshear) highlight the importance of test protocols in undertaking research to explore the effects of complex dynamic loading paths. The liquefaction resistance of sand was highly dependent on the loading path. However, it was not affected much by variations in δ, if the horizontal shear stress ratio (τzθ/σmc′) and the ratio between shear stress increment and normal stress increment (ΔS/ΔN) were held constant. In tests with constant cyclic stress ratio (CSR), an increase in δ decreases the cyclic resistance because the increase in δ causes a reduction in the rate of deviatoric stress increment per degree of principal stress rotation. At a given CSR, for δ≠0 cases, a change in ΔS/ΔN does not affect the liquefaction resistance of sand because the magnitude and pattern of rotation is not affected much by ΔS/ΔN (for the ratios explored in this research). Increasing Kc or static shear stress ratio (αst) increased the cyclic resistance of the tested sand for ΔS/ΔN<1. The rate of increase in cyclic resistance with increasing αst decreases with the increase in ΔS/ΔN and was essentially unchanged for ΔS/ΔN=1. This observation, that the rate of increase in cyclic resistance with αst decreases with increasing ΔS/ΔN, is consistent with the observation in the literature that the cyclic triaxial loading yields higher static shear stress correction factor (Kα) than cyclic simple shear in loose sand.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".