MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1943446122 · doi:10.1139/cgj-2013-0012

Experimental and theoretical studies of laterally loaded finned piles in sand

2013· article· en· W1943446122 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ahmed Nasr

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil Mechanics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPileGeotechnical engineeringStructural engineeringFoundation (evidence)Head (geology)FinStructural loadFinite element methodEngineeringScale modelGeologyMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Large lateral loads may act on pile foundation supporting structures, such as bridge abutments, retaining walls, and structures subjected to wind–earthquake loads. A pile with fins is a newly developed type of pile foundation that is capable of supporting large lateral loads. In the present study an attempt is made to evaluate the improvement in lateral capacity of a pile with fins mounted close to the pile head. Small-scale model tests and a numerical study using finite element analysis were performed on regular piles without (fins) and piles with fins. These piles were installed in sand of different relative densities (Dr= 35% and 78%). The investigations were carried out by varying the length, width, and shape of the fins, and type of pile. Results reveal that there is a significant increase in lateral resistance of the piles after mounting the fins close to the pile head. The increase in lateral resistance gained by placing fins on a pile varies with geometries of the pile and fins. The lateral resistance increases with the increase in length of the fins until the fin’s length is equal to 0.4 of the pile length. Based on the results of the laboratory model and numerical analysis, critical values of fin parameters for maximum improvement are suggested. The agreement between observed and computed results is found to be reasonably good in terms of ultimate lateral load and fin efficiency. A comparison between the model results and the prototype-scale results is also studied.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.210
Teacher spread0.201 · 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 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

Citations107
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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