MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2060644880 · doi:10.1139/t07-093

Performance of gravity caisson on sand compaction piles

2008· article· en· W2060644880 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
C. F. Leung, Rui Shen

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil Stabilization
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCaissonGeotechnical engineeringWharfGeologyEngineeringCompactionStructural engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Gravity caissons were employed as part of the wharf front structures for a container port terminal in Singapore. This paper reports the movements of eight consecutive gravity caissons supported on sand compaction piles (SCPs) with highly variable lengths of penetration. It is established that the caisson movements increase with an increase in the length of the SCP, as longer SCPs are necessary when hard strata are at greater depth. The large caisson movements observed during caisson infilling and backfilling do not pose a concern because the wharf deck beams connecting adjacent caissons can be adjusted. However, the caisson movements under service loads would affect the operation of the overlying quay cranes on top of the caissons. The present field study reveals that preloading the caissons is effective in reducing the caisson movements under service loads because the observed caisson movements are insignificant during subsequent unloading–reloading of the caissons. Back-analysis using the finite element method (FEM) shows that the observed caisson movements at different construction stages can be reasonably replicated. The numerical results are also used to evaluate the caisson tilt angle, which could not be measured in the present field study. The caisson tilt is found to be independent of the length of SCPs underneath a caisson.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.189
Teacher spread0.176 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations9
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Geotechnical Journal→Same topicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil Stabilization→French-language works237,207→