MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1980409901 · doi:10.1139/t2012-013

Integrating finite element and load-transfer analyses in modelling the effects of dewatering on pile settlement behaviour

2012· article· en· W1980409901 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Joshua R. Omer

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground Structures
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPileSettlement (finance)Geotechnical engineeringFinite element methodLoad testingStructural engineeringEngineeringSump (aquarium)GeologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A method of analysis is developed by integrating finite element (FE) and load-transfer analyses to predict the negative shaft resistance and settlement of piles due to ground water lowering. A program is written in MATLAB for linking the FE results of ground movements with the input interface system of a new pile load–settlement analysis program (named “PILESET”) developed by the author. PILESET is specially designed to allow automatic input of electronic site investigation data, although manual input of laboratory soil test data is also possible. Using PILESET, custom-defined load-transfer relationships can be either input manually or calculated internally by PILESET based on the input data from in situ or laboratory soil tests. To demonstrate the validity of the suggested analysis procedure, a case record is analyzed where sump pumping was to be carried out underneath a deep basement situated close to an existing building supported on 15 m long piles. Based on assumed steady-state flow conditions, ground settlements are calculated using FE analysis and used with site investigation data to predict the negative shaft resistance and settlement induced in the piles. The results are found to agree well with field measurements.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.200
Threshold uncertainty score0.532

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.213 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations6
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Geotechnical JournalSame topicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground StructuresFrench-language works237,207