Calibration of models for pile settlement analysis using 64 field load tests
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
Due to the presence of uncertainties, errors inevitably arise with the estimations of pile settlement. To properly consider serviceability requirements in limit state design, it is necessary to characterize the performance of commonly used settlement prediction models. In this work, information from 64 cases of long driven steel H-piles from field static loading tests in Hong Kong is utilized to evaluate the errors of three settlement prediction models for single piles: two elastic methods and a nonlinear load–transfer method. Commonly adopted soil parameters recommended in two Hong Kong design guidelines are used to reflect the uncertainty arising from evaluation of soil properties. The model error is represented by a bias factor. A conventional statistical analysis was first conducted to study the variability of model bias. A regression analysis method was then proposed as a supplemental analysis of model bias when only limited test data were available or when the measured settlement data distribute in a large range. Both methods result in very similar mean biases. The mean bias of each prediction model tends to vary with the load level and the bearing stratum at the pile toe; while the coefficient of variation of model bias only varies in narrow ranges.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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