MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1910348732 · doi:10.1139/t08-038

Experimental study of interaction and coupling effects in pile groups subjected to torsion

2008· article· en· W1910348732 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Linggang Kong, Limin Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil Mechanics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPileCentrifugeGeotechnical engineeringTorsion (gastropod)Structural engineeringGroup effectGeologyPile capMaterials scienceEngineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Piles in a pile group subjected to torsion simultaneously mobilize lateral and torsional resistances. Hence, complicated pile–soil–pile interaction effects and load deformation coupling effects occur in the pile group. In this study, a series of centrifuge model tests were carried out to investigate these effects in three-diameter spaced 1 × 2, 2 × 2, and 3 × 3 pile groups subjected to torsion in both loose and dense sands. The test results showed that the effect of horizontal movement of a pile on lateral behaviors of its adjacent piles is significant in 3 × 3 pile groups and such effect varies with group configuration and pile position. The p-multiplier concept can be used to quantify the effect and values for the p-multiplier are suggested. The effect of lateral movement of a pile on the torsional resistances of its adjacent piles and the effect of torsional movement of a pile on the lateral resistances of its adjacent piles were found to be minor in these tests. For an individual pile in a pile group subjected to torsion, the mobilized lateral resistance was found to substantially increase the torsional resistance of the pile. Such a coupling effect is quantified by a coupling coefficient, β, which describes the contribution of subgrade reaction to the increase of torsional shear resistance.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.043
Threshold uncertainty score0.565

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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.200 · 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 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

Citations29
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Geotechnical JournalSame topicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil MechanicsFrench-language works237,207