MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2868903240 · doi:10.1139/cgj-2018-0134

Medium-scale laboratory model of mono-bucket foundation for installation tests in sand

2018· article· en· W2868903240 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Aleksandra Katarzyna Koteras, Lars Bo Ibsen

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground Structures
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEnergiteknologisk udviklings- og demonstrationsprogram
KeywordsGeotechnical engineeringFoundation (evidence)Scale (ratio)Scale modelEngineeringGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Design implications of suction installation of bucket foundations are still not well understood. During suction installation, applied suction under the bucket lid results in seepage flow through the surrounding sand. Seepage flow plays a pivotal role in reducing the penetration resistance, allowing for full penetration despite the initial large soil resistance. However, loosening of the inside soil plug might be problematic when the soil approaches its failure stage, due to soil piping or extensive soil heave inside the bucket foundation. To better understand the interaction between the soil and bucket skirt during suction installation, this paper describes the results of medium-scale tests of bucket foundation installations in sand, comparing jacking and suction installations. Experimental measurements of the pore pressure around the bucket skirt are compared with the numerical simulation results, to validate the finite-element model and to enable analysis of the soil behavior around the skirt.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.545
Threshold uncertainty score0.558

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.217
Teacher spread0.207 · 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

Citations27
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Geotechnical JournalSame topicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground StructuresFrench-language works237,207