MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2599275891 · doi:10.1061/9780784480441.064

An Instrumented Becker Penetration Test for the Estimation of Soil Penetration Resistance and Pile Capacity in Gravelly Soils

2017· article· en· W2599275891 on OpenAlexaff
Kevin C. Kuei, Anthony M. Rossiter, Alex P. Sturm, Jason T. DeJong, Daniel W. Wilson, Mason Ghafghazi

Bibliographic record

VenueGeotechnical Frontiers 2017 · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground Structures
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersDepartment of Water ResourcesCalifornia Department of Transportation
KeywordsHammerStandard penetration testPileGeotechnical engineeringPenetration testPenetration (warfare)Structural engineeringDeckSoil waterDynamic load testingTension (geology)GeologyEngineeringCompression (physics)Materials scienceSoil science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The recently developed instrumented becker penetration test (iBPT) can provide direct measurements of force and acceleration directly behind the driving shoe and at up to four locations along the drill string. This paper describes details of the test system and presents representative results from iBPT soundings performed at a project site where piles, supporting a bridge deck, were installed in relatively clean gravelly soils to a depth of approximately 18 m. The ability of the iBPT system to estimate equivalent SPT N60 values is demonstrated. Dynamic data from individual hammer blows obtained at the tip and along the shaft, as well as fitting of the data with simple spring-dashpot model is presented. Finally, results from static tension load tests showing the measured load distribution along the pile length is presented.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.212 · 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

Citations2
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeotechnical Frontiers 2017Same topicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground StructuresFrench-language works237,207