MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2327378453 · doi:10.1061/40975(318)158

Centrifuge Modeling of Pile Pinning Effects

2008· article· en· W2327378453 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Richard J. Armstrong, Ross W. Boulanger, Ümit Gülerce, Bruce L. Kutter, Daniel W. Wilson

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil Mechanics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of California, DavisAustralian GovernmentNational Science Foundation
KeywordsCentrifugePileGeotechnical engineeringLeveeBridge (graph theory)Structural engineeringSettlement (finance)Pile capSuperstructureDeformation (meteorology)Foundation (evidence)EngineeringGeologyStress (linguistics)Computer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Earthquake-induced deformation of piled bridge abutments in approach embankments underlain by liquefied soils may be reduced by the restraining forces provided by the piles and bridge superstructure. Design methods accounting for these "pinning" effects have been applied in practice, but they lack significant comparison with actual physical data. Three dynamic centrifuge model tests were performed to investigate pile pinning effects, and the results are presented in this paper. The centrifuge models were composed of two identical embankments underlain by liquefiable soil, one with a pile group and another without. Data from the tests demonstrated that the embankment with a pile group had less lateral movement and settlement than the embankment without a pile group. The experimental results and back-calculated stress-strain responses are described, and the implications for design practice discussed.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.160
Teacher spread0.152 · 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

Citations2
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil Mechanics→French-language works237,207→