Case study of a piled raft foundation constructed using a reverse construction method and its post-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A building and its foundation were constructed in sandy ground using a reverse construction method. The main difference between a reverse construction method and a conventional construction method is that the piles are cast in place and are partially loaded by the superstructure early during the construction process. It is only later that the raft (mat foundation) is constructed to combine with the piles to bear the full building load. Therefore, the foundation is regarded as a pile group in early stages of construction, while the foundation behaves as a piled raft after completion of the raft construction. A simple conservative design approach was used for the design of the foundation. To examine the validity of the design method, settlements of the foundation were observed during construction. The measured settlements were smaller than those predicted in the design stage, satisfying the design requirements for the building. Post-analysis of the deformation of the foundation was carried out using the results of the pile load test at the construction site, and the results of the analysis are compared with the observed settlements of the foundation, aiming at an improvement in pile foundation design.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".