Statistics of model factors in reliability-based design of axially loaded driven piles in sand
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper compiles 162 reliable field load tests for axially loaded driven piles in sand from previous studies. The L 1 –L 2 method is adopted to interpret the measured resistance from the load–settlement data. The accuracy of resistance calculations with the ICP-05 and UWA-05 methods based on cone penetration test profile is evaluated by the ratio (bias or model factor) of the measured resistance to the calculated resistance. A hyperbolic model with two parameters, where the load component is normalized by the measured resistance, is utilized to fit the measured load–settlement curves. The means, coefficients of variation, and probability distributions for the resistance model factor and the hyperbolic parameters are established from the database. Copula theory is employed to characterize the correlation structure within the hyperbolic parameters. The statistical properties of the model factors are applied to calibrate the resistance factors in simplified reliability-based designs of closed-end piles driven into sand at the ultimate and serviceability limit state by Monte-Carlo simulations. A simple example is provided to illustrate the application of the proposed resistance factors to estimate the allowable load for an allowable settlement at the desired serviceability limit probability.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".