MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2151214331 · doi:10.1139/t00-073

A possible physical meaning of Case damping in pile dynamics

2001· article· en· W2151214331 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Limin Zhang, Michael McVay, Charles WW Ng

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil Mechanics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFlorida Department of Transportation
KeywordsPileGeotechnical engineeringParasitic dragDamping ratioDynamic load testingStructural engineeringBearing capacityClay soilDamping factorSoil waterLoss factorEngineeringGeologyMechanicsPhysicsVibration

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents some possible interpretations of the physical meaning of the lumped, toe, and skin Case damping factors, jcL, jct, and jcs, respectively, which are extensively utilized in the dynamic analysis of pile driveability and capacity. A single degree of freedom model is employed to relate the Case damping to the hysteretic damping ratios of soil and pile materials. This relation and the damping ratios of soils and piles show that the Case damping factors for piles in sandy and clayey soils may overlap at all strain magnitudes. Coupling of pile toe and skin resistance is analyzed, and the jcLfactor is found to be a function of the skin and toe resistance ratio of the pile. Consequently, the jcLfactor is an important indicator with which the skin friction and toe resistance of piles can be separated. A database of 133 cases of dynamic pile tests in Florida has been used to substantiate the analyses and interpretations. The effects of the assumptions made in this paper are also discussed.Key words: pile dynamics, wave equation, Case damping, hysteretic damping, bearing capacity, skin friction.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.193 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Geotechnical JournalSame topicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil MechanicsFrench-language works237,207