Critical assessment of pile modulus determination methods
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
The elastic modulus of a concrete pile is an important parameter for the interpretation of load test results. This paper summarizes and assesses the methods available for its determination. Ten methods have been identified of which four are based on laboratory tests and the remainder on in situ pile instrumentation. Six of the methods have been used to interpret the modulus of a concrete pile subject to an axial load test. From the analyses, it was found that creep strains that developed during load-holding periods can have a significant effect on the modulus value if not allowed for when assessing the measured strain values. Based on a comparison of the derived pile loads the secant modulus method was found to be the most satisfactory. The tangent modulus method was also found to be a useful tool for investigating the effect of a partial steel casing - a feature of the method that has not been discussed before. Surprisingly, the theoretically correct transformed area equation had the worst performance, probably because of the chosen method for obtaining the concrete specimens on site.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it