MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2087055602 · doi:10.1139/t05-016

Computer simulation of the dynamic layered soilpilestructure interaction system

2005· article· en· W2087055602 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Xilin Lü, Peizhen Li, Bo Chen, Yueqing Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground Structures
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPileEarthquake shaking tableFinite element methodGeotechnical engineeringStructural engineeringEngineeringNonlinear systemSoil structure interactionFoundation (evidence)Lateral earth pressureContact analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A three-dimensional finite element analysis of the soil–pile–structure interaction system is presented in this paper. The analysis is based on data from shaking table model tests made in the State Key Laboratory for Disaster Reduction in Civil Engineering, Tongji University, China. The general finite element program ANSYS is used in the analysis. The surface-to-surface contact element is taken into consideration for the nonlinearity state of the soil–pile interface, and an equivalent linear model is used for soil behavior. A comparison of the results of the finite element analysis with the data from the shaking table tests is used to validate the computational model. Furthermore, the reliability of the test result is also verified by the simulation analysis. It shows that separation, closing, and sliding exist between the pile foundation and the soil. The distribution of the amplitude of strains in the pile, the amplitude of contact pressure, and the amplitude of sliding at the soil–pile interface are also discussed in detail in this paper.Key words: soil–pile–structure interaction, shaking table model test, computer simulation, ANSYS program.

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)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.045

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.005
GPT teacher head0.196
Teacher spread0.191 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations49
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Geotechnical JournalSame topicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground StructuresFrench-language works237,207