An investigation of scaling and dimensional analysis of axially loaded piles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper investigates the use of the concepts of similarity and dimensional analysis to interpret results from reduced-scale models of axially loaded piles embedded in sand. These concepts are reviewed in the light of a pilesoil system and its response to static or half-sine impulsive loading. It is suggested that constitutive similarity between model and prototype responses can be fulfilled without scaling gravity, provided that a stress scaling factor equal to one is selected. The scaling factors are validated with numerical simulations via finite element analyses by comparing the results from full-scale and special reduced-scale pilesoil models. It is also shown that a frustum confining vessel has the potential to provide more realistic scaled responses than are obtained with the classical 1g devices. A series of pile test responses are simulated for different pile lengths and different coefficients of lateral earth pressure. A set of scaling factors is presented and a particular set of dimensionally homogeneous π groups is proposed to characterize the behaviour of the pilesoil system. Simulated responses are interpreted using the proposed π groups to obtain functional relations relevant to the pilesoil problem.Key words: reduced-scale modelling, dimensional analysis, similarity, model piles, sands.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".