Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper proposes a new, integrated two-layer model to capture nonlinear response of rotationally restrained laterally loaded rigid piles subjected to soil movement (sliding soil, or lateral spreading). First, typical pile response from model tests (using an inverse triangular loading profile) is presented, which includes profiles of ultimate on-pile force per unit length at typical sliding depths, and the evolution of pile deflection, rotation, and bending moment with soil movement. Second, a new model and closed-form expressions are developed for rotationally restrained passive piles in two-layer soil, subjected to various movement profiles. Third, the solutions are used to examine the impact of the rotational restraint on nonlinear response of bending moment, shear force, on-pile force per unit length, and pile deflection. Finally, they are compared with measured response of model piles in sliding soil, or subjected to lateral spreading, and that of an in situ test pile in moving soil. The study indicates the following: (i) nonlinear response of rigid passive piles is owing to elastic pile–soil interaction with a progressive increase in sliding depth, whether in sliding soil or subjected to lateral spreading; (ii) theoretical solutions for a uniform movement can be used to model other soil movement profiles upon using a modification factor in the movement and its depth; and (iii) a triangular and a uniform pressure profile on piles are theoretically deduced along lightly head-restrained, floating-base piles, and restrained-base piles, respectively, once subjected to lateral spreading. Nonlinear response of an in situ test pile in sliding soil and a model pile subjected to lateral spreading is elaborated to highlight the use and the advantages of the proposed solutions, along with the ranges of four design parameters deduced from 10 test piles.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".