MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2461397521 · doi:10.1139/cgj-2016-0301

Bucket foundation model testing under tensile axial loading

2016· article· en· W2461397521 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Evelina Vaitkune, Lars Bo Ibsen, Benjaminn Nordahl Nielsen

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground Structures
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFoundation (evidence)Geotechnical engineeringUltimate tensile strengthStiffnessPore water pressureTension (geology)Structural engineeringDynamic loadingMaterials scienceDisplacement (psychology)EngineeringComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present study focusses on bucket foundation behaviour under long-term cyclic loading. The paper analyses testing results of a bucket foundation model exposed to cyclic tensile loading. The model, with dimensions of 1 m in diameter and 0.5 m in skirt length, was, installed in dense water-saturated sand. Slow monotonic loading tests and cyclic tensile loading tests were performed (up to 40 000 load cycles) including tests with mean cyclic loading in tension, which is a unique testing condition. High-quality data were documented for load, displacement, and pore pressure response. Conclusions have been drawn regarding static and cyclic loading stiffness and displacement development during long-term cyclic loading. Four cyclic loading tests induced partially drained soil conditions and showed that pore pressure can accumulate during the long-term loading. Post-cyclic monotonic tensile loading tests showed up to 25% reduction in load capacity of the foundation. The research results provide valuable information for the design of an upwind bucket foundation under a jacket structure.

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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.189 · 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

Citations14
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Geotechnical JournalSame topicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground StructuresFrench-language works237,207