Performance of micropiled raft in sand subjected to vertical concentrated load: centrifuge modeling
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Initial applications of micropiles have involved retrofitting foundations of existing buildings. In these applications, the overall performance of the micropiles–raft (MPR) foundation system is similar to a piled raft foundation where the load is transmitted through both the raft and micropiles. However, there is no guidance available regarding the performance of MPR foundations. In this study, geotechnical centrifuge testing was conducted to investigate the behavior of MPR foundations in sand and evaluate their performance characteristics. The study investigated the effect of raft flexibility on a number of important design parameters, including raft total and differential settlements, raft contact pressure, raft bending moment, and load sharing between the raft and micropiles. In addition, the use of micropiles as settlement reducers was investigated. The results showed that the micropiles carried 42%–59% of the applied load for the MPR configuration considered, which resulted in redistribution of the raft contact pressure. It was found that the Poulos–Davis–Randolph (PDR) method can be used to evaluate the performance of MPR systems with relatively stiff rafts; however, it is not applicable for MPR with flexible raft. A correction factor was proposed to account for the raft flexibility in the PDR method.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it