MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1986057547 · doi:10.1139/t2012-087

Load tests on full-scale bored pile groups

2012· article· en· W1986057547 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Guoliang Dai, Rodrigo Salgado, Weiming Gong, Yanbei Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil Mechanics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersPriority Academic Program Development of Jiangsu Higher Education InstitutionsNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsPileGeotechnical engineeringSettlement (finance)Dynamic load testingStructural engineeringPile capGroup effectLoad testingFull scaleGeologyGroup (periodic table)EngineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The interactions between closely spaced piles in a pile group are complex. Very limited experimental data are available on the loading of full-scale bored pile groups. This paper reports the results of axial static load tests of both full-scale instrumented pile groups and single piles. The load tests aimed to ascertain the influence of number, length, and spacing of the piles on pile group load response. Experiments varied in the number of piles in the group, pile spacing, type of pile groups, and pile length. All piles had a diameter of 400 mm. Two-, four-, and nine-pile groups with pile lengths of 20 and 24 m were tested. As the isolated piles and some piles in the pile groups were instrumented, the load transfer and load–settlement curves of both piles in isolation and individual instrumented piles in the groups were obtained. The interaction coefficient for each pile in the group was back-calculated from the measured data. The interaction coefficients are shown to be dependent on pile proximity, as usually assumed in elastic analyses, but also on settlement and on the size of the group.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.623
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.189
Teacher spread0.181 · 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.

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

Citations62
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Geotechnical JournalSame topicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil MechanicsFrench-language works237,207