MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2766709081 · doi:10.1139/cgj-2016-0518

Geometrical effects on the load transfer mechanism of pile groups: three-dimensional numerical analysis

2017· article· en· W2766709081 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Yaru Lv, Dongdong Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil Stabilization
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersChina Postdoctoral Science FoundationNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsPileBending momentStructural engineeringPile capGeotechnical engineeringDynamic load testingStiffnessGroup effectEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper investigates geometrical effects on the load transfer mechanism of off-ground capped pile groups subjected to vertical load by four three-dimensional numerical simulations, including a circular single pile, an X-shaped cross-sectional concrete (XCC) single pile, a 4 × 4 circular pile group, and a 4 × 4 XCC pile group. The ultimate bearing capacities of the XCC and circular piles within pile groups are approximately 0.86 and 0.74 times that of the XCC and circular single piles, respectively. The group efficiency of the XCC pile group is mainly improved by its side resistance. Comparing the XCC pile group to the circular pile group, the increment in side resistance is almost larger than the increment in pile perimeter, indicating that the pile geometry alters the load transfer mechanism via stress concentration and lateral stress arching. A nonuniform load distribution on piles within a capped pile group causes a bending moment along the pile shafts. The bending moment of XCC piles is smaller than that of circular piles because the raft stiffness of an XCC pile group is increased by its larger circumscribing pile diameter.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.638
Threshold uncertainty score0.724

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.196
Teacher spread0.186 · 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

Citations21
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Geotechnical JournalSame topicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil StabilizationFrench-language works237,207