Bibliographic record
Abstract
The estimation of base resistance is a key step in the design of piles embedded in moderately dense to dense sand. Calibration chamber plate load tests are sometimes used to investigate the base load - settlement relationship of nondisplacement piles in sand. In such tests, the sand specimens are carefully prepared to simulate the installation of nondisplacement piles. In this paper, calibration chamber tests are analyzed using the finite element method; experimental and numerical results are compared. The finite element models are axisymmetric and use a nonlinear, elastic-plastic constitutive model. Plate resistance values predicted using the finite element analysis are shown to be in good agreement with measured values, which validates the proposed numerical model. Questions regarding the existence of calibration chamber size effects have not, to this date, been adequately addressed. Finite element analyses of both pile base resistance and plate resistance for sands with various relative densities and stress states show that size effects are usually small for settlement levels of interest in practice. This suggests that the use of calibration chambers in pile base capacity studies is justified.Key words: calibration chambers, plate load tests, constitutive modeling, size effects, piles, sands.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".