Numerical modelling of perimeter pile groups in clay
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The load distribution among piles in a group varies such that the inner piles often carry a smaller share of the total load compared to the outer piles, which is a result of increased soil–pile interaction. The main objective of this paper is to establish the relative effectiveness of pile groups with no inner piles (perimeter group), when compared to the more common grid configuration. The numerical investigation utilized the finite element programme ABAQUS and considered a range of variables that affect pile group behaviour including number of piles, pile spacing, length/diameter ratio, and soil strength. It was demonstrated that a complete grid group is less efficient than a perimeter group, where efficiency is defined as the load capacity of the whole group expressed as a ratio of the number of piles in the group multiplied by the load capacity of a single isolated pile. Efficiencies close to unity were observed for some perimeter groups. Perimeter groups also showed that a “block” type group failure could occur, where piles were placed at a spacing of less than 2.0 pile diameters,d, centre-to-centre. This often, but not always, led to a reduction in the efficiency of the pile group.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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".