MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2476603542 · doi:10.1080/19375247.2016.1211353

Cyclic axial performance of helical-tapered piles in sand

2016· article· en· W2476603542 on OpenAlexafffund
A. Fahmy, M. Hesham El Naggar

Bibliographic record

VenueDFI Journal The Journal of the Deep Foundations Institute · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil Mechanics
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPileGeotechnical engineeringStructural engineeringStiffnessCompression (physics)Materials scienceFinite element methodCyclic stressDisplacement (psychology)GeologyEngineeringComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The cyclic performance of a novel piling system is presented in this article. It is composed of spun-cast ductile iron (SCDI) tapered pile fitted with a lower helix. The pile combines the durability of rough surface spun-cast ductile iron, the efficiency of tapered section and the construction advantages of helical piles. Five instrumented SCDI tapered helical piles and two straight helical piles were installed in sand and tested in cyclic compression and uplift. Effects of prior monotonic and cyclic tests on the piles’ cyclic performance were assessed. Finite element simulations of the tested piles were performed to evaluate the possible stiffness change during loading. The proposed pile exhibited enhanced cyclic compressive performance compared to straight shaft piles. Prior cyclic uplift loads had a negative effect on the proposed pile’s performance, whereas previous monotonic compression loading reduced its cyclic uplift displacement. Both tested configurations showed satisfactory cyclic uplift perfor...

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)0.000
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.204 · 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

Citations15
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDFI Journal The Journal of the Deep Foundations InstituteSame topicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil MechanicsFrench-language works237,207