MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1965374522 · doi:10.1520/acem20120043

Influence of Fiber-Reinforced Polymers on Pile–Soil Interface Strength in Clays

2013· article· en· W1965374522 on OpenAlexaff
John Mario García Giraldo, Mohammad T. Rayhani

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in Civil Engineering Materials · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground Structures
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceFibre-reinforced plasticPileGroutComposite materialAdhesionShear strength (soil)Geotechnical engineeringDirect shear testShear (geology)GeologySoil water

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A series of direct shear tests were carried out in order to characterize the pile–soil interface strength for various pile materials including steel, concrete, and grout and to investigate the influence of fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) materials on the pile–soil interface strength in soft clay. The study investigated both pile–soil interface friction and interface adhesion by simulating drained and undrained conditions. The results among the traditional pile materials indicated the superior performance of grout and concrete relative to steel. FRP interfaces were shown to perform at a level the same as or higher than that of traditional steel piling under both drained and undrained conditions in clays. The FRP–clay interface friction angles were 5 % to 19 % greater than those in traditional steel–clay interfaces and 12 % to 23 % smaller than that of concrete. In addition, FRP interface adhesion was observed at between 86 % and 135 % of the interface adhesion of steel and between 65 % and 75 % of the interface adhesion of concrete.

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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.198 · 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

Citations26
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvances in Civil Engineering MaterialsSame topicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground StructuresFrench-language works237,207