MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2031575217 · doi:10.1139/t08-095

Centrifuge and numerical modeling of axial load effects on piles in consolidating ground

2009· article· en· W2031575217 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
S. Y. Lam, Charles W.W. Ng, C. F. Leung, S. H. Chan

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil Mechanics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Science Foundation
KeywordsCentrifugePileGeotechnical engineeringSettlement (finance)Slip (aerodynamics)StiffnessStructural engineeringStructural loadDynamic load testingGeologyEngineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper reports the results of four centrifuge model tests that were undertaken to investigate behavior of floating piles subjected to negative skin friction (NSF) and to study effects of axial load on the load-transfer mechanism along single floating piles and shielded center piles inside a group of sacrificing piles. In addition, three-dimensional numerical analyses of the centrifuge model tests were carried out with elasto-plastic slip considered at the pile–soil interface. Prior to applying load, the measured neutral plane position of the single floating piles was located at approximately the three-quarter depth level of the embedded pile length. The neutral plane elevation shifts lower down the pile shaft as the distance of pile tip above the bearing stratum decreases. Under the application of axial load, the dragload generated by excessive soil settlement decreases and is eventually eliminated. The amount of axial load for complete NSF elimination does not seem to be significantly affected by the presence of sacrificing piles, but it does increase with end-bearing stiffness of the pile. Numerical simulation revealed that the hang-up effect is not altered by the application of axial load.

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)0.001
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 score0.070
Threshold uncertainty score0.766

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.193
Teacher spread0.186 · 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

Citations89
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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