MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7108069816 · doi:10.1051/epjconf/202534007012

Microstructural study of liquefaction in highly polydisperse granular media

2025· article· en· W7108069816 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueEPJ Web of Conferences · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil Mechanics
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique MontréalNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLiquefactionTailingsShear (geology)Granular materialVolume fractionDiscrete element methodCompactionPore water pressure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

During earthquakes, rapid loading on loose, water-saturated silty sands can lead to undrained (constant volume) conditions that induce high pore water pressures. This process, known as liquefaction in geotechnical engineering, involves a loss of stress in the solid phase (effective) and can result in structural failures, such as frequent mine tailings dam collapses. Understanding the particle-scale mechanisms behind liquefaction is crucial for predictive modeling. However, this aspect remains poorly explored due to experimental limitations. In this study, we use discrete element method (DEM) simulations on one highly polydisperse granular material to investigate liquefaction. Samples of varying density are prepared by removing different amounts of floating particles (rattlers) after consolidation. The samples are then sheared under constant volume to the critical state. The results show that loose samples lose all strength, medium-loose samples temporarily liquefy but regain strength at large strains, and denser samples do not liquefy and exhibit continued shear strain hardening. At the micro-mechanical scale, permanent liquefaction is linked to heterogeneous solid fraction distributions (macropores), while samples with uniformly distributed local solid fraction either resist liquefaction or recover from it.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.319
Threshold uncertainty score0.362

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.210 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEPJ Web of ConferencesSame topicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil MechanicsFrench-language works237,207