Superstructure–foundation interaction in multi-objective pile group optimization considering settlement response
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The full potential of pile optimization has not been realized as the interactions between superstructures and foundations, and the relationships between material usage and foundation performance are rarely investigated. This paper introduces an analysis and optimization approach for pile group and piled raft foundations, which allows coupling of superstructure stiffness with the foundation model, through a condensed matrix representing the flexural characteristics of the superstructure. This coupled approach is implemented within a multi-objective optimization algorithm, capable of providing a series of optimized pile configurations at various amounts of material. The approach is illustrated through two case studies. The first case involves evaluation of the coupled superstructure–foundation analyses against field measurements of a piled raft–supported building in London, UK. The potential benefits of pile optimization are also demonstrated through re-analyses of the foundation by the proposed optimization approach. In the second case, the effects of a soft storey on the superstructure–foundation interactions are investigated. These cases demonstrate the importance of properly considering the superstructure effects, especially when the building consists of stiff components such as concrete shear walls. The proposed approach also allows engineers to make informed decisions on the foundation design, depending on the specific project finances and performance requirements.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it