Seismic Behaviour of Piles in Non-Liquefiable and Liquefiable Soil
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This paper investigates the nonlinear soil-pile-structure interaction (SPSI) employing three-dimensional (3D) nonlinear finite element (FE) models verified with the results of large-scale shaking table tests of model pile groups-superstructure systems. The responses of piles in both liquefiable and non-liquefiable soil sites to ground motion with varying intensities were evaluated considering both kinematic and inertial interaction. The calculated piles and soil responses agreed well with the responses measured during the shaking events. The numerical models correctly predicted the different pile deformation modes that were exhibited in the experiments. The FEA was then employed to perform a parametric study to evaluate the kinematic and inertial effects on the piles' response considering different ground motion levels and piles characteristics. It was found that the bending moment of piles in the liquefiable site increases significantly, compared to the non-liquefiable site, due to the loss of lateral support of the liquified soil, and the maximum bending moment occurs at the interface between the liquified and non-liquefied sand layers. The inertial interaction contributes the most to the bending moments at the pile top and the interface between the top clay and liquefied loose sand layers. For piles with a larger diameter, the bending moment due to kinematic interaction increases significantly and the bending moment distribution corresponds to short (rigid) pile behaviour. In addition, the piles at the saturated site displace laterally as a rigid body during strong ground motions because the pile base loses the lateral support due to the liquefaction of the bottom dense sand. Finally, the kinematic interaction effect becomes more significant for piles with higher elastic modulus.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".