Effect of nearby piles and soil properties on thermal behaviour of a field-scale energy pile
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The thermal response of an energy field scale pile that is part of a pair of energy piles spaced at a centre-to-centre distance of 3.5 m (i.e., 6D, where D is the pile diameter), was examined experimentally and numerically. Three field tests were conducted to assess the axial and radial thermal responses of the energy pile: (i) heating of the energy pile alone, (ii) heating of both energy piles simultaneously, and (iii) heating of the other energy pile while the considered energy pile was not heated. Good agreement was obtained between the experimental and numerical evaluations of the energy pile during the tests. A parametric study of the validated numerical model was performed for each of the three tests to understand the effects of varying soil thermal conductivity, thermal expansion coefficient, and elastic modulus on the thermal response of the considered energy pile. The numerical results confirmed the field results that radial thermal stresses in the energy piles were insignificant compared to axial thermal stresses. The impact of elastic modulus of the soil was more significant on the thermal stresses of the energy pile compared to the effects of soil thermal conductivity and thermal expansion coefficient. The thermal stresses of the considered energy pile were not significantly affected when both energy piles were heated simultaneously, even though ground temperature changes between the energy piles were more significant due to thermal interaction. Only minor thermal effects on the non-thermal pile were observed during heating of one of the energy piles for different soil properties.
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".