Centrifuge modeling of torsional response of piles in sand
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Centrifuge model tests were performed to investigate the torsional behavior of a well-instrumented model pile jacked into loose and dense sand. The whole process of pile jacking, torsional loading, and pile extraction was conducted in-flight at 40g using a four-axis robotic manipulator. The torsional response at the pile head, distributions of torque and shaft friction along the pile shaft, torsional load transfer, and loading rate effects were studied. The shaft resistances along the pile during torsional loading, compression loading, and tension loading were compared. The shear stress local pile movement curves obtained from the present torsional load tests were found to be approximately hyperbolic and similar to those obtained from axial load tests reported in the literature. The torsional shear stress distribution along the pile shaft was influenced by stress degradation effects, particularly in the loose sand. A criterion was proposed to define pile failure under torsional loading. Torsional loading rates in the range of 18°/s had little effect on the torsional resistance of the pile. Depending on the initial state of the soil around the pile, the shaft resistance under torsional loading may be greater than that under axial loading when the horizontal stress is larger than the vertical stress, but smaller when the horizontal stress is smaller than the vertical stress.Key words: centrifuge modeling, compression test, loading rate, load transfer, pile foundations, tension test, torsional test.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".