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 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)0.000
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 score0.940
Threshold uncertainty score0.740

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.018
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 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

Citations14
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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