MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2115091641 · doi:10.1139/cgj-2014-0336

Interaction effects on load-carrying behavior of piled rafts embedded in clay from centrifuge tests

2015· article· en· W2115091641 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Donggyu Park, Junhwan Lee

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil Mechanics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCentrifugeRaftPileGeotechnical engineeringSettlement (finance)Pile capGeologyEngineeringStructural engineeringMaterials scienceComposite materialPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the present study, various interaction effects and load-carrying behavior of piled rafts embedded in clay were investigated. For this purpose, a series of centrifuge load tests were conducted using different types of model foundations, including single pile, group piles, piled raft, and unpiled raft. Different clay conditions were considered to prepare for centrifuge specimens. It was found that the pile group effect in clays is significant within initial loading range, showing lower load-carrying capacity. As settlement increases, the pile group effect becomes less pronounced. For both soft and stiff conditions, the values of the raft-to-pile (R-P) interaction factor varied initially, which became converged to some values around unity with increasing settlement. Similar tendency was observed for the pile-to-raft (P-R) interaction factor. The load responses of different pile components within the piled raft were not significantly different for the soft condition. For the stiff condition, the corner and inner piles showed the highest and lowest load-carrying capacities, respectively, due to piled-raft interaction effects. Correlations to cone resistance were analyzed and presented for the base and shaft resistances of piles for piled rafts.

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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.049
Threshold uncertainty score0.991

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.213 · 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

Citations30
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Geotechnical JournalSame topicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil MechanicsFrench-language works237,207