Influence of phase difference between kinematic and inertial loads on seismic behaviour of pile foundations in layered soils
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A series of dynamic centrifuge experiments was conducted on model pile foundations embedded in a two-layered soil profile consisting of soft-clay layer underlain by dense sand. These experiments were specifically designed to investigate the individual effect of kinematic and inertial loads on a single pile and a 3 × 1 row pile group during model earthquakes. It was observed that the ratio of free-field soil natural frequency to the natural frequency of structure might not govern the phase relationship between the kinematic and inertial loads for pile foundations as reported in some previous research. The phase relationship obtained in this study agrees well with the conventional phase variation between the force and displacement of a viscously damped simple oscillator subjected to a harmonic force. Further, as expected, the pile accelerations and bending moments can be smaller when the kinematic and inertial loads act against each other compared to the case when they act together on the pile foundations. This study also revealed that the peak kinematic pile bending moment will be at the interface of soil layers for both single pile and pile group. However, in the presence of both kinematic and inertial loads, the peak pile bending moment can occur either at the shallower depths or at the interface of soil layers depending on the pile cap rotational constraint.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".