MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2038625399 · doi:10.1139/t05-089

A field study on the behavior of micropiles in clay under compression or tension

2006· article· en· W2038625399 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jie Han, Shu-Lin Ye

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGrouting, Rheology, and Soil Mechanics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeotechnical engineeringTension (geology)Bearing capacityCompression (physics)UnderpinningDisplacement (psychology)EngineeringLoad testingStrain gaugeStiffnessStructural engineeringGeologyMaterials scienceComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Micropiles have been used for underpinning existing foundations founded on problematic soil, disturbed by the intrusion of underground activities (such as tunneling), or subjected to additional loads (such as stories added to existing buildings). This paper presents a field study on the behavior of single micropiles in soft clay subjected to compression or tension. Two compression and two tension loading tests were conducted on four single micropiles. All the micropiles were instrumented with rebar strain gauges, and they were monitored during the progress of loading. To set up a baseline for underpinned loading tests presented in a companion paper, a full-scale loading test was performed on natural soil. The results from all these full-scale loading tests are presented and analyzed in this paper. The paper discusses load–displacement responses, elastic moduli, axial forces, tip resistance, and skin friction relating to micropiles and their interactions with soft clay. Theoretical solutions for bearing capacity of soil, load capacity of piles, and percentage of tip resistance to the total load were adopted for examination of the test results.Key words: micropile, load–displacement, load capacity, skin friction, tip resistance.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.656
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.216 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations95
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Geotechnical JournalSame topicGrouting, Rheology, and Soil MechanicsFrench-language works237,207