Experimental study of interaction and coupling effects in pile groups subjected to torsion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".