MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2169643723 · doi:10.1139/t09-008

Studies on the behaviour of screw piles by the finite element method

2009· article· en· W2169643723 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Nainan P. Kurian, Syed J. Shah

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil Mechanics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPileFinite element methodStructural engineeringParametric statisticsFoundation (evidence)Nonlinear systemGeotechnical engineeringUltimate tensile strengthEngineeringMaterials scienceMathematicsPhysicsComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A circular pile with helical blades is an old type of foundation, which has staged a comeback recently and is being used in a variety of situations. Most of the research on helical screw piles has been experimental or theoretical with the help of simplifying assumptions. The method of design adopted so far treats this pile as an annular plate, disregarding the intricacies of the geometry of the helix. It is only the versatility of the finite element method that can take into account the actual geometry of a spatial structure such as the helical blade at a microlevel. This is perhaps the first attempt at such an analysis to study the response of the helical screw pile within the elastic and nonlinear ranges. While the pile is linearly elastic, soil is considered both as a linear elastic medium and as an elastic–plastic medium following the Drucker–Prager constitutive model. Cases of smooth contact and frictional contact between soil and screw pile are also considered. Screw piles are studied under compressive, tensile, and lateral loading conditions. Moreover, their performance is compared with that of prismatic piles. A parametric study has also been attempted on some key geometrical features of the screw pile.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.788
Threshold uncertainty score0.483

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.229 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations54
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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