A field study on the behavior of a foundation underpinned by micropiles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Micropiles have been used for many applications, including underpinning existing foundations to support structures subjected to additional loads, such as stories added to buildings. A field study was conducted to simulate a footing initially constructed on a natural soil to support a structure and later subjected to additional loads. This study investigated load transfer mechanisms during the connection of micropiles to the concrete plate under the initial load and during the additional loading. Earth pressure cells and rebar strain gauges were installed underneath the loading plate and in the micropiles, respectively, to monitor variation of stresses during the loading and connection processes. The behavior of micropiles in the underpinned foundation under the additional loading was analyzed and compared with that in the single-micropile loading tests presented in a companion paper. Theoretical solutions were adopted for examining the results obtained from this field study, including the overall stiffness of the underpinned foundation, the tip resistance, and the ratio of the load carried by the plate (raft). Guidelines are proposed for designing underpinned foundations using micropiles subjected to additional loads.Key words: underpinning, micropile, load transfer, skin friction, tip resistance, piled raft.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".