Large-scale model tests of a single pile and two-pile groups for an offshore platform in sand
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Estimating pile group efficiency for open-ended steel piles in small group arrangements is a challenging task for designers. This paper reports on the large-scale experimental campaign performed for the BorWin gamma offshore converter platform, which involved single piles and two-pile group systems on a scale of 1:10. The experimental works included installation, dynamic end-of-driving tests, dynamic restrike tests, and static load tests of a single pile and a pair of two-pile groups in densely compacted, artificially prepared homogeneous sand. The cone penetration test (CPT) profiles and the blow counts confirmed that the foundation systems are comparable to each other. The experimental results of the single pile system were compared with conventional design methods. Such comparison indicated that CPT-based methods and load-transfer methods are applicable at the considered model scale. The bearing capacity prediction obtained via the Case Pile Wave Analysis Program (CAPWAP) method is conservative with respect to the static capacity. A consistent setup effect can be detected by analyzing the complete dynamic loading session. The pile group efficiency for the given foundation system was found to be less than 1.0 at both very small and very large soil strains, while it equaled 1.0 at failure.
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 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".