MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2021423115 · doi:10.1139/t08-118

Incorporating setup into load and resistance factor design of driven piles in sand

2009· article· en· W2021423115 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Luo Yang, Robert Liang

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil Mechanics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPileReliability (semiconductor)LogarithmGeotechnical engineeringProbabilistic logicEngineeringResistance FactorsLoad factorStructural engineeringReliability engineeringComputer scienceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A comprehensive database is developed for the setup for piles driven into sand. Based on the compiled pile-testing data, pile setup is significant and continues to develop for a long time after pile installation. The statistical analysis shows that a logarithm-normal distribution can be used to describe the probabilistic characteristics of the predicted setup capacity using the Skov and Denver equation. The main objective of this paper is to incorporate the setup effect into a reliability-based load and resistance factor design (LRFD) of driven piles in sand. The first-order reliability method (FORM) is used to derive separate resistance factors that would account for different degrees of uncertainties associated with measured short-term capacity and predicted setup capacity. The incorporation of setup effects in the LRFD helps improve the prediction of total capacity of driven piles, resulting in more economical design. A practical design procedure within the LRFD framework to incorporate the pile setup effects is outlined.

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 score0.417
Threshold uncertainty score0.683

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.193
Teacher spread0.183 · 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

Citations30
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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