Analysis of piles in a residual soil—The ISC'2 prediction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The 2nd International Conference on Site Characterization (ISC'2), held in 2004, included a seminar for prediction of pile capacity involving three 6 m embedment length test piles, one 350 mm square driven concrete pile, and two 600 mm diameter, strain-gage instrumented, bored piles. Invited predictors were provided with results of in situ, laboratory tests and dynamic tests. Test layout, soil information, and pile data are presented with calculations of pile capacity and load distribution, submitted predictions, and results of the static loading tests. The CPT-calculated capacities show considerable scatter—total values ranged from 500 to 1400 kN for the driven pile and from 1000 to 1900 kN for the bored piles. The static loading test on the driven pile showed an offset limit load of 1200 kN and a plunging capacity of 1500 kN. Despite pile movements of 100 mm for 1200 kN of applied load, neither of the bored piles showed signs of having reached an ultimate resistance value. Effective stress analysis of strain measurements for the bored piles showed the data to correlate to a β coefficient of 1.0 and a toe coefficient of 16. Most submitted predictions underestimated the capacity of the driven pile and overestimated the capacities of the bored piles.Key words: pile capacity, effective stress analysis, shaft and toe resistances, β coefficient, CPTU, dynamic testing.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".