A Comparison Study: Estimating the Axial Micropiles Capacity Using Current Practices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
According to the innovation of new techniques used in building constructions, a new structural case of loading appears.An additional usage of micropiles beside the conventional purpose is needed to cope with these cases of loading.Nowadays, retrofit buildings to resist static and dynamic construction loadings is an urgent need.Due to the uneconomic of conventional piles or the restricted construction of retrofitting buildings, or to reinforce the weak soils, micropiles are appropriate to be used.Although, up to now, there is no accurate estimation of the axial capacities of micropiles (i.e., compression and tension).Current design guidelines try to introduce safe and economic methods of estimating the axial capacities of micropiles.All these guidelines recommend just preliminary designs and performing a full-scale test is a must to validate the designed capacity.A comparison study is presented in this paper to catch on the most suitable method should be used to estimate the axial micropile capacities by comparing the results to full-scale tests results.The end bearing can be neglected in the micropile design in case of the need to limit the building settlement.Some engineering design standards can be applied to design micropiles and more investigation is needed to enhance the tensile geotechnical capacity of micropiles.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".