Compensated piled rafts in clayey soils: behaviour, measurements, and predictions
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
This paper presents a method of analysis of the behaviour of piled rafts in clayey soils, in which a deep excavation was necessary for buildings with two or more basements. In these cases, the piled raft foundations are called a “compensated piled raft.” The soil stresses reduce due to excavation, and the reloading of the soil should be taken into account for this kind of foundation. Many important factors that are required to achieve a satisfactory comparison of “measurement versus prediction” are pointed out, and they are grouped in a proposed simplified method of analysing compensated piled rafts using numerical tools that can consider the raft–soil–pile interaction. Finally, two well-known cases of compensated piled rafts (Hyde Park Barracks in London and the Messeturm building in Frankfurt) and a newer building (the Skyper Tower, Frankfurt) are analyzed using the presented approach and the computed and measured time–settlement behaviours are compared.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.002 |
| 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