Development of a simple test to quantify the consolidation properties of liquefied granular materials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Liquefaction can have devastating consequences by causing increased mobility of debris flows, tailings dam breaches, and settlement following seismic shaking. Observations on the consolidation behaviour of liquefied soils in 1-g or centrifuge shake table tests have permitted significant advancements in analytical and numerical methods to predict the rate and magnitude of consolidation settlement. However, advanced consolidation models introduce material parameters which are currently difficult to define quickly and at low cost. The objective of this paper is to demonstrate the development of a simple, low-cost test that can be used to quickly estimate the spatially and temporally varying coefficient of consolidation, which controls post-liquefaction settlements. Using the proposed simple setup, experiments were conducted on four uniformly graded sands of varying grain size and on one well-graded mixture. A range of analytical and numerical approaches from literature were assessed for their ability to back-analyse the observed pore pressure dissipation and settlement. Estimated values for the coefficient of consolidation were comparable between models and estimates of surface settlement matched well the experimental results. The simplicity of the proposed test combined with its low-cost and mobile nature, raise significant possibilities for quick estimations of the evolution of the coefficient of consolidation post-liquefaction.
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".