Group behaviour of hollow-bar micropiles in cohesive soils
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The use of hollow-core bars in micropiles has greatly increased over the past 10 years. In this study, the group behaviour of hollow-bar micropiles is investigated. The research methodology encompasses a full-scale field study on single hollow-bar micropiles and pairs of micropiles installed in cohesive soils and numerical investigations using three-dimensional (3D) finite element analysis. Four hollow-bar micropiles were installed in stiff silty clay deposit using large drilling carbide bits. Four axial monotonic tests on pairs of hollow-bar micropiles were conducted as part of the field study. The field test results were utilized to calibrate–verify a 3D finite element model (FEM). A parametric study was performed using the verified FEM to characterize capacity and performance of hollow-bar micropile groups. Group efficiency factors and interaction factors were established to evaluate the capacity and response of hollow-bar micropile groups under vertical loading. The results from the field tests and numerical investigations revealed that for hollow-bar micropiles, group efficiency factor, GE, can be taken equal to 1. A method for calculating the group settlement utilizing the interaction factors approach is proposed and a family of interaction factor diagrams is established to evaluate the group settlement.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".