Assessment of liquefaction potential for a silty sand in Central Western Taiwan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Chi Chi earthquake of September 21, 1999 triggered extensive soil liquefaction in silty sand deposits in Central Western Taiwan. The post Chi Chi earthquake studies indicated that the fines content adjustments according to the simplified procedure could cause rather inconsistent results amongst various assessment methods. The authors performed a series of cone penetration chamber calibration tests and cyclic triaxial tests on remolded Mai Liao Sand (MLS) specimens, with various fines contents and densities. The triaxial cell was equipped with bender elements and shear wave velocity (Vs) was measured prior to the cyclic shearing test. With these data, the authors were able to calibrate the correlations among CRR, cone tip resistance (qc) and Vsfor MLS. A test site was developed in Yuan Lin County where standard penetration test (SPT), seismic piezocone and field Vsmeasurements were performed and low disturbance silty sand samples using a Laval sampler were taken. A series of cyclic triaxial tests were conducted on the Laval samples with Vsmeasurements using bender elements. These field and laboratory test results were used to validate the correlations among CRR, qcand Vsfrom calibration tests and the simplified procedure typically used in liquefaction potential assessment. This paper describes the laboratory calibration tests on MLS, results from Yuan Lin test site studies and discusses their implications in the assessment of liquefaction potential for the silty sand in this region.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".