Influence of Microplastic Contamination on Sand Liquefaction Initiation and Post-Liquefaction Behavior
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Plastics have become an essential part of human life; however, the increased dependence on single-use disposable plastic items has led to the ubiquity of microplastics (MPs) in our environment. As plastics in the environment degrade into MPs, they can spread through various means, entering the ground and causing implications for the health and well-being of the surrounding environment as well as for the properties of the soil in which the contaminants can reside. A current gap exists in the geotechnical engineering community’s understanding of the effects of MPs on the dynamic properties of soils. The influence of MPs on soil behavior under dynamic loading is assessed through a series of constant volume strain-controlled cyclic simple shear tests in conjunction with bender elements (BE). This study examines the behavior of medium-dense specimens of clean Ottawa sand and Ottawa sand mixed with 10% MPs by dry mass. The MPs utilized in this investigation are composed of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) with a particle diameter range of 50 to 100 microns. Equivalent pore pressure ratio curves vs. increasing cyclic strain percentages were developed for both clean Ottawa sand and contaminated Ottawa sand. Monotonic simple shear tests are performed on the liquefied specimens following cyclic testing. The post-liquefaction stress-strain curves of clean and contaminated sand are also developed and compared. The results determined from this study improve the assessment of the liquefaction potential of highly contaminated soils in seismic-prone areas such as dense urban communities, which can reduce the potential loss of lives and resources.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".