Lateral Behavior of a Large Pile Group Supporting an LNG Tank
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Large pile groups (≥=100 piles) are often used to support liquefied natural gas (LNG) tanks to resist not only large vertical structural loads but also significant lateral loads from earthquakes or hurricanes. In general, the design of a large pile group follows standards or prevalent methods that are established based on field or centrifuge test results for a small pile group (≤=25 piles). This does not recognize that lateral group effect of a large pile group is more pronounced than that of a small pile group, and the use of the recommended group reduction factors for a small pile group can be unsafe for the design of a large pile group, in particular for a pile foundation with ≥= 1,000 piles (such as an LNG tank foundation). This study employed a series of 3D continuum finite-element analyses to investigate lateral responses (bending moment, shear force, and lateral displacement) of piles in square pile groups from 3 × 3 to 40 × 40 as well as in circular pile groups supporting LNG tanks. The results were used to examine the difference of lateral responses of piles between single isolated piles, small pile groups, and large pile groups, which would allow for a better understanding of lateral behavior of a large-scale pile foundation supporting an LNG tank.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it