MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1991405585 · doi:10.1139/l07-047

Full-scale pile tests in sand and development of a computer program for predicting load capacity

2007· article· en· W1991405585 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
J.K.C. Shih, Joshua R. Omer, R. Delpak, R. B. Robinson, C D Jones

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Civil Engineering · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil Mechanics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCone penetration testPileCasingLateral earth pressureGeotechnical engineeringStructural engineeringComputer programPenetration testBearing capacityDynamic load testingTest dataMathematicsEngineeringComputer scienceMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An interactive computer program GLAMPILE has been developed for predicting the static load capacity of single piles formed in any soil profile. A variety of well-known prediction methods have been incorporated into the program, including (i) soil mechanics based formulae; (ii) direct and indirect cone penetration test (CPT) based methods with and without accounting for scale effects of the cone on pile base capacity; and (iii) a new CPT-based method that considers the effects of “critical depth” and shaft resistance distribution, although the method has only been calibrated for relatively short piles. GLAMPILE can cope with different pile types installed with or without a permanent casing. The program has been applied to predict the axial capacities of 11 piles that were recently installed in sand and statically loaded to failure. Results from the soil mechanics procedures indicate increases, on the in situ value, of the earth pressure coefficient by up to 37%, which lies within the range 0%–100% recommended in the literature. The best CPT-based prediction method applied yields a mean (µ) and coefficient of variation (COV) of predicted to measured pile head capacity (Puh(p)/Puh(m)) of 0.83 and 0.12, respectively. Scale effects are shown to be nominal for the cases analysed. An improved method is recommended, which yields µ = 1.00 and COV = 0.10, implying higher accuracy and reliability compared with the other methods.Key words: piles, cone penetration test, static and dynamic load test, modular program.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.189
Teacher spread0.180 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Civil EngineeringSame topicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil MechanicsFrench-language works237,207