Comparative study of Y-shaped and circular floating piles in consolidating clay
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although engineers often make use of pile geometry to improve the axial load capacity of piles, geometrical effects on floating piles in consolidating clay are still not fully understood. This paper reports two centrifuge model tests to investigate the responses of a Y-shaped pile and a circular pile subjected to an induced dragload and applied axial loads. Three-dimensional numerical back-analyses were performed considering the elastoplastic slip. The Y-shaped and circular piles developed similar downdrag, but the dragload induced on the Y-shaped pile was larger than that induced on the circular pile. As the axial load increased, the neutral plane shifted upward along a nonlinear path, of which the gradient of the Y-shaped pile was gentler. The ultimate bearing capacity of the Y-shaped pile was 1.73 times that of the circular pile. The dragload on the Y-shaped and circular piles was eventually eliminated at approximately 0.56 and 0.83 times the corresponding ultimate pile capacities, respectively. Three flanges of the Y-shaped pile “hung-up” adjacent soil that settled together with the pile shaft. The lateral extent of vertically nonuniform trapped soil decreased with increasing axial load. Even though the Y-shaped and circular piles encountered a similar serviceability limit state, Y-shaped pile had advantages in bearing capacity.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".