The 2002 Canadian Geotechnical Colloquium: The role of soilpile interaction in foundation engineering
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Soilpile interaction (SPI) plays an important role in the analysis and design of foundations and structures. Geotechnical engineers have recognized this role, and many studies have focused on several aspects of the topic in the past four decades. As the third millennium begins, geotechnical engineers are challenged to provide more reliable and efficient foundation solutions to support larger, heavier, and more complicated structures. SPI must be thoroughly understood to properly address the issues that arise when designing foundations to meet these challenges. This presentation investigates some of the important features of SPI as they relate to some innovative applications in foundation engineering. Specific problems examined here include design of tapered piles where understanding SPI and interface conditions is utilized to develop efficient design procedures; construction of fibre-reinforced polymer (FRP) and thin-walled pipe piles using an innovative device that exploits the understanding of aspects of SPI during driving for efficient installation; and Statnamic pile load testing where analysis of SPI is used to establish the characteristics of the pile static behaviour from the dynamic loading event.Key words: tapered, piles, driving, fibre-reinforced polymer, Statnamic, load 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 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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.003 |
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".