A theoretical solution for pile-supported embankments on soft soils under one-dimensional compression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pile-supported embankments are increasingly being used for highways, railways, storage tanks, etc. over soft soil because of their effectiveness in accelerating construction and minimizing deformation. The stress transfer mechanisms among all of the components in a piled embankment, including the embankment fill, the piles and (or) caps, and the foundation soils, are complicated. In this study, a closed-form solution for one-dimensional loading was obtained taking into consideration the soil arching in the embankment fill, the negative skin friction along the pile shaft, and the settlement of the foundation soil. In the derivations, the piles, the embankment fill, and the foundation soil were assumed to deform one-dimensionally. This study investigated the stress concentration on top of the pile, the axial load and skin friction distributions along the pile, and the settlement of the embankment. Comparisons demonstrate that the results from this solution are in good agreement with those obtained using a finite element method. It is worth pointing out that this solution should be applied to the piles close to the centerline of the embankment and not to those near the toe of the embankment because of the two-dimensional loading condition near the toe.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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".