Interaction effects on load-carrying behavior of piled rafts embedded in clay from centrifuge tests
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".