MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2039424296 · doi:10.1016/j.hbrcj.2014.08.002

Three dimensional modeling of laterally loaded pile groups resting in sand

2014· article· en· W2039424296 on OpenAlexaff
Amr F. Elhakim, Mohamed Abd Allah El Khouly, R. Awad

Bibliographic record

VenueHBRC Journal · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil Mechanics
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPileHead (geology)Geotechnical engineeringStructural engineeringDisplacement (psychology)CentrifugeFinite element methodRotation (mathematics)Dynamic load testingGeologyEngineeringGeometryPhysicsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many structures often carry lateral loads due to earth pressure, wind, earthquakes, wave action and ship impact. The accurate predictions of the load–displacement response of the pile group as well as the straining actions are needed for a safe and economic design. Most research focused on the behavior of laterally loaded single piles though piles are most frequently used in groups. Soil is modeled as an elastic-perfectly plastic model using the Mohr–Coulomb constitutive model. The three-dimensional Plaxis model is validated using load–displacement results from centrifuge tests of laterally loaded piles embedded in sand. This study utilizes three dimensional finite element modeling to better understand the main parameters that affect the response of laterally loaded pile groups (2 × 2 and 3 × 3 pile configurations) including sand relative density, pile spacing (s = 2.5 D, 5 D and 8 D) and pile location within the group. The fixity of the pile head affects its load–displacement under lateral loading. Typically, the pile head may be unrestrained (free) head as the pile head is allowed to rotate, or restrained (fixed) head condition where no pile head rotation is permitted. The analyses were performed for both free and fixed head conditions.

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 score0.202
Threshold uncertainty score0.393

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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.191
Teacher spread0.178 · 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

Citations21
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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