MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6945505538 · doi:10.25394/pgs.15055686

Cone penetration analysis using the Material Point Method

2021· dissertation· en· W6945505538 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenuePurdue · 2021
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFluid Dynamics Simulations and Interactions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTraction (geology)GeomechanicsMaterial point methodBoundary value problemNumerical analysisStress fieldBoundary (topology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The boundary value problems (BVPs) of geomechanics are challenging due to the complexity in modeling soil behavior and difficulties in modeling large deformations. While traditional numerical schemes have struggled in realistically simulating geomechanical BVPs, new numerical methods –such as the material point method (MPM)–are increasingly being used to tackle these problems. However, algorithms in MPM have not yet been sufficiently developed, scrutinized, and validated. This thesis focuses on the development, verification, and validation of MPM for use in geomechanical BVPs. In particular, the thesis focuses on simulation of cone penetration tests in both controlled environments and in field conditions. To efficiently simulate cone penetration, a silent boundary scheme, known as a cone boundary, was proposed in the generalized interpolation material point method (GIMP), a variant of MPM. The implementation of the cone boundary in GIMP was discussed, and the boundaries were validated by comparison against several benchmark problems. The cone boundaries were shown to be suitable in transmitting energy at the boundary. In addition, the implementation of traction boundaries in GIMP was analyzed. In GIMP, traction boundaries may be implemented either at the centroid of the material point, or at the edge of the material point domain. It was shown that the implementation of traction boundaries at the edge of the domain led to stress oscillations near the boundary, which were minimized when the traction boundaries were implemented at the edge of the domain. During cone penetration, the soil near the cone-soil interface is pushed to large strains. At large strains, soils reach critical state, a state in which the soil shears at constant volume. Simulation of incompressible materials using low-order shape functions commonly used in GIMP leads to stiffer solutions and stress oscillations. To mitigate the constraints imposed by incompressibility, the non-linear B-bar method was implemented in GIMP. The modifications required for the implementation of the B-bar method in GIMP were discussed, and the efficacy of the method in mitigating incompressibility was demonstrated by analyzing several benchmark problems. To simulate cone penetration in saturated soil, a coupled formulation was proposed in GIMP.A single material point was used to represent both the soil matrix and water. The governing equations were solved using an explicit scheme with the velocity of the soil matrix and the velocity of water as the primary variables. The formulation was validated through problems for which analytical or numerical solutions are available. Finally, cone penetration analyses were performed both in dry sand and saturated clays. Two bounding surface models –one for sand and one for clay –were used for accurately capturing the soil response. Cone penetration tests were performed on Ottawa 20-30 sand under a variety of loading conditions at a large calibration chamber. The penetration resistances were measured, and the displacement fields were captured using the digital image correlation technique(DIC). The cone penetration resistances predicted by MPM were within 25% of the measured values, and the displacement fields computed using MPM were similar to those captured using DIC. For saturated clays, cone penetration test results reported in the literature for a Boston Blue Clay (BBC) test site were used. The simulated cone resistance of 650 kPa lied within the CPT resistance range of 580-730 kPa reported in the field. The results demonstrate the capability of MPM in simulating cone penetration in both sands and clays provided that sufficiently accurate algorithms and advanced constitutive models capable of reproducing realistic soil behavior are used in the analyses.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.283 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePurdueSame topicFluid Dynamics Simulations and InteractionsFrench-language works237,207