Load-sharing mechanism of non-displacement piled-raft foundation in sand
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Piled-raft foundations are recognised for sharing the total load by both the piles and the raft. The economic benefits of this system lead to its popularity in practice; however, research in this field has continued to lag behind owing to the difficulties associated with modelling and availability of field data. This is due to the fact that the load-sharing mechanism of the piled-raft foundation is a complex soil–structure interaction problem, which is governed by the pile/raft/geometry/soil condition and by their by-product parameters. This paper presents the results of an experimental investigation on a prototype model of a piled-raft foundation in sand. The effects of the governing parameters on the load-sharing mechanism are examined. The results of this investigation show that pile spacing and settlement govern the load-sharing mechanism between the piles and the raft. A widely accepted analytical model in the literature was modified in this study to take into account the effect of settlements and pile spacing on the load-sharing mechanism in a piled-raft system. The theory developed is validated by the current experimental results and those available in the literature. The design procedure is presented as a guide in the design of the piled-raft foundation in sand.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".