Soil–pile separation effect on the performance of a pile group under static and dynamic lateral loads
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effect of soil–pile separation is studied with respect to the performance of a laterally loaded pile group. Full-scale tests, which consist of a combination of a single and a 3 × 5 group pile under static and dynamic lateral loads, present a unique opportunity and allow a rigorous study without arbitrary parameter back-fitting. The coupled soil–pile system is idealized through two-dimensional finite elements with soil models idealized by a hyperbolic-type multiple shear mechanism. Nonlinear spring elements are used to idealize the soil–pile interaction through a hysteretic nonlinear load–displacement relationship. Joint elements with a separation–contact mechanism are used to idealize the separation effect at the soil–pile interface. Ignoring soil–pile separation in static tests overestimates the ultimate lateral load–carrying capacity by 43% for a single pile and 73% for the trailing pile in a closely spaced pile group. Moreover, neglecting soil–pile separation in dynamic tests overestimates the total group load–deflection curve in both the loading and unloading phases.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".