MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3216164731 · doi:10.1139/cgj-2020-0547

A field study on the load sharing behavior of a micropiled raft underpinned by a waveform micropile

2021· article· en· W3216164731 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Chengcan Wang, Jin-Tae Han, Seokjung Kim

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil Mechanics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMinistry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport
KeywordsRaftPileLoad sharingGeotechnical engineeringStructural engineeringLoad bearingLoad testingEngineeringGeologyMaterials scienceComputer scienceComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A waveform micropile (WMP) uses the jet-grouting method to generate shear keys along the pile shaft for improving shaft resistance and cost efficiency. In this study, field loading tests were performed to characterize the load sharing behavior upon inclusion of a WMP in a group of four micropiles. First, single-pile compressive loading tests were conducted on three WMPs and five type A micropiles (MP). Subsequently, a group-pile loading test was performed on a piled raft comprising 2 × 2 MPs and a central WMP. The load–settlements, axial stiffnesses, and load transfer mechanisms of individual MPs were analyzed during the tests, including the short- and long-term effects of the axial stiffnesses of the MPs on the load sharing ratio of the micropiled raft. The single-pile loading test results revealed that the shear keys along the WMPs caused its bearing capacities and axial stiffnesses to be 1.5 times and 2–5 times higher than those of MPs, respectively. In the micropiled-raft loading test, the load sharing ratios of the MPs increased with their axial stiffnesses, and the highest load sharing capacity was exhibited by the WMP, which constituted 30% of the total load and 2–3 times that of MPs. Moreover, the influence of raft on the load-sharing capacity should be considered as well.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.193 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Geotechnical JournalSame topicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil MechanicsFrench-language works237,207