Reliability-based calibration of resistance factors for static bearing capacity of driven steel pipe piles
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As part of a study to develop load and resistance factor design (LRFD) codes for foundation structures in South Korea, resistance factors for the static bearing capacity of driven steel pipe piles were calibrated in the framework of the reliability theory. A database of 52 static load test results was compiled, and the data from these load test piles were sorted into two cases: a standard penetration test (SPT) N-value at pile tip (i) less than 50 and (ii) equal to or more than 50. Reliability analyses and resistance factor calibration for the two static bearing capacity analysis methods adopted in the Korean Design standards for foundation structures were performed using the first-order reliability method (FORM) and the Monte Carlo simulation (MCS). Reliability indices and resistance factors computed by the MCS are statistically identical to those computed by FORM. Target reliability indices were selected as 2.0 and 2.33 for the group pile case and 2.5 for the single pile case. The resistance factors recommended from this study are specific for the pile foundation design and construction practice and the subsurface conditions in South Korea.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it