MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2035794206 · doi:10.1139/cgj-2014-0041

Plugging effect of open-ended piles in sandy soil

2014· article· en· W2035794206 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Junyoung Ko, Sangseom Jeong

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil Mechanics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Research Foundation of Korea
KeywordsPileGeotechnical engineeringSpark plugAnnulus (botany)Strain gaugeStandard penetration testDiameter ratioPenetration (warfare)Penetration testGeologyStructural engineeringMaterials scienceEngineeringComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents an experimental study of the plugging effect on the capacity of open-ended piles installed in sandy soil. Full-scale tests, including dynamic and static axial compression load tests, were carried out on three instrumented piles with different diameters (508.0, 711.2, and 914.4 mm). To measure the outer and inner shaft resistances acting on the piles, a double-walled system was utilized, with instrumented strain gauges on the outside and inside walls of the pile. The results of field tests show that the inner shaft resistance was mostly mobilized at the location between the pile tip and 18%–34% of the total plug length. It was found that the soil plugging in the lower portion has influence on the inner shaft resistance. In addition, it can be also demonstrated that the ratio of inner shaft resistance plus annulus load resistance to total resistance was decreased with increasing pile diameters. The results of these tests show that the relationship between the degree of plugging and pile diameter is clearly established. Direct observations of the soil plugs were made and used to quantify both the plug length ratio (PLR) and the incremental filling ratio (IFR). Based on this result, it was realized that the N value of the standard penetration test (SPT) is highly correlated with the IFR.

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 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 score0.067
Threshold uncertainty score0.795

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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.203
Teacher spread0.197 · 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

Citations67
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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