Study on horizontal bearing characteristics of pile foundations in coral sand
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents the horizontal bearing characteristics of piles in coral sand and silica sand from comparative experimental studies. Six model piles with different diameters were tested. The horizontal bearing capacity, deformation characteristic, bending moment, p–y curve, change in soil horizontal pressure, as well as particle breakage behaviour of coral sand were investigated. The results show that, in the coral sand foundation, the horizontal bearing capacities of piles and the increments in soil horizontal pressures are obviously greater than those in silica sand. Accordingly, the lateral displacement, rotation of the pile head, bending moment, and corresponding distribution depth in coral sand are significantly smaller than those in silica sand. The p–y curves indicate that the horizontal stiffness of coral sand is greater than that of silica sand. Remarkably, the breakage behaviour of coral sand is mainly distributed in the range of 10 times the pile diameter depth and 5 times the pile diameter width on the side where the sand is squeezed by the pile. Furthermore, in coral sand, the influence of pile size is more pronounced, the squeezing force generated by the pile spreads further, and its influence range is larger compared to those in silica 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 | 0.000 | 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".