MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2088751044 · doi:10.1139/t07-026

Field<i>P</i>–<i>y</i>curves in weathered rock

2007· article· en· W2088751044 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Kook Hwan Cho, Mohammed A. Gabr, Shane Cecil Clark, Roy H. Borden

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground Structures
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeotechnical engineeringGeologyDeflection (physics)SubgradeStrain gaugeSiltstoneStiffnessExtensometerModulusStructural engineeringEngineeringMaterials scienceGeomorphologyComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In weathered and decomposed rock profiles, the lack of an acceptable analysis procedure for estimating lateral load–displacement response of drilled shafts is compounded by the unavailability of weathered material properties, including the material's lateral subgrade reaction modulus. Such deficiency often leads to the overdesign of the drilled shaft foundation. Six field tests were conducted on drilled shafts to investigate the shape and magnitude of P–y curves in weathered rock material at three locations in North Carolina. The tested shafts were instrumented using dial gages, strain gages, and continuous vertical inclinometers. The measured load versus deflection data are used to study the stiffness response of weathered rock. Measured lateral responses are compared with the results estimated based on a "weak rock" model and a stiff clay model. The comparison shows that Reese's weak rock model overestimated the resistances of the tested shafts while the stiff clay model consistently underestimated the measured shaft resistances. The measured and computed results are analyzed and discussed.Key words: drilled shaft, weathered rock P–y curve, subgrade modulus, ultimate resistances in weathered rock, verification tests.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.867
Threshold uncertainty score0.748

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.195
Teacher spread0.190 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations9
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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