Mathematical characterization of pile–soil interface boundary for consolidation analysis of soil around permeable pipe pile
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A permeable pipe pile is proposed to accelerate the dissipation of excess pore-water pressure through drainage holes around the pile circumference into the pile’s cavity. This investigation generalizes the permeable pile–soil interface as an impeded boundary, based on which a mathematical model for soil consolidation around the permeable pile is derived. Subsequently, the influence of opening pattern, drainage hole-to-pipe pile radius ratio, and opening ratio on the consolidation efficiency is numerically investigated. A total of 240 numerical cases with different drainage hole-to-pipe pile radius ratios, opening ratios, and hydraulic conductivity ratios are calculated to determine the permeable pile–soil interface parameter using back-analysis, and an approximate expression for interface parameter is obtained. Comparing against experimentally measured excess pore-water pressure dissipation, the proposed technique with impeded drainage boundary can provide good evaluations for drainage characteristics at the permeable pile–soil interface and consolidation behavior of the surrounding soil. It is found that the spatial distribution pattern of drainage holes has negligible influence on the consolidation efficiency. Increasing the opening ratio (with constant opening size) or reducing the drainage hole-to-pipe pile radius ratio (with constant opening ratio) can both accelerate the consolidation efficiency.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".