Evaluation of the Static Design Procedure in the Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual for Piles in Cohesionless Soil
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Piles provide a convenient solution for heavy structures, where the foundation soil bearing capacity, or the tolerable settlement may be exceeded due to the applied loads. In cohesionless soils, the two frequently used pile installation methods are driving and drilling (or boring). This paper reviews the results of a large database of pile load tests of driven and drilled piles in cohesionless soils at various locations worldwide. The load test results are compared with the static analysis design method for single piles recommended in the Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual (CFEM) and other codes and standards such as the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Federal Highway Administration, American Petroleum Institute, Eurocode, and the Naval Facilities Engineering Command. An improved pile design procedure is proposed linking the pile design coefficients (β) and (Nt) to the friction angle of the soil, rather than employing the generalized soil type grouping scheme previously used in the CFEM. This improvement included in the new version of the CFEM 2021 produces a more unified value of the pile capacity calculated by different designers, reducing the obtained design capacity discrepancies.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".