MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4281665382 · doi:10.1139/cgj-2021-0079

Measurement of pile uplift forces due to soil heave in expansive clays

2022· article· en· W4281665382 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Talia S. da Silva Burke, S.W. Jacobsz, Mohammed Z. E. B. Elshafie, Ashraf S. Osman

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil Mechanics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEngineering and Physical Sciences Research CouncilUniversity of PretoriaUniversity of Cambridge
KeywordsGeotechnical engineeringPileExpansive clayExpansiveGeologyTension (geology)LimitingSoil waterEngineeringCompressive strengthSoil scienceMaterials scienceCompression (physics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Piled foundations are widely used to limit the movement of foundations in expansive clays. These piles are subjected to large uplift forces as the clay swells (and downdrag forces when it shrinks). The appropriate method to estimate these forces is not well understood, and estimates from various methods presented in literature result in large variations. The uplift force generated in piles by soil heave was derived from strain measurements in full-scale field tests where a pile was installed in a highly expansive soil profile and flooded for several months. The results were compared to available theoretical estimates to comment on the most appropriate procedure to estimate the generated tension in the pile. The results showed that the use of an elastic solution related to the expected soil heave combined with a limiting shaft friction estimated from total stress capacity methods provided the most appropriate match to the measured results both in terms of the magnitude of the developed tension in the pile and shape of the tension profile along the depth of the pile.

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.186
Teacher spread0.175 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations12
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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