MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2167122843 · doi:10.1139/t08-073

Response of tapered piles to axial harmonic loading

2008· article· en· W2167122843 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mahmoud Ghazavi

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil Mechanics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersIsfahan University of Technology
KeywordsPileIsotropyAmplitudeHarmonicViscoelasticityVibrationPile capGeotechnical engineeringMechanicsResonance (particle physics)Structural engineeringHead (geology)Materials scienceGeologyPhysicsEngineeringOpticsAcousticsComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents a new mathematical approach for the analysis of a harmonically vibrating, linear, elastic, tapered pile. The soil consists of a number of horizontal elastic strata that are homogeneous, isotropic, and linearly viscoelastic. The governing differential equation for an arbitrary pile segment is obtained and solved. The solution starts from the pile toe and ends up with the pile head. It will be shown that when the taper angle is increased, the resonant amplitudes of piles decrease. It will also be demonstrated that the resonance amplitudes and resonant frequencies of the floating tapered pile and a uniform pile of the same volume and length vary slightly. However, the resonant amplitude of an end-bearing tapered pile is significantly less than that of the equivalent uniform pile. It will generally be concluded that the use of tapered piles subjected to axial harmonic vibrations is superior to the use of cylindrical piles of the same length and volume. This is very attractive for dynamically loaded piles, encouraging the practical use of tapered piles.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.196
Teacher spread0.182 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations38
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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