Comparative analysis of international codes of practice for pile foundation design considering negative skin friction effect
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Negative skin friction (NSF) effect on pile foundation design attracts the attention of geotechnical engineers and requires comprehensive research. However, the ways of consideration of NSF for the pile foundation design vary with different design codes. This study aims to compare design code requirements adhering to Construction Codes and Regulations (i.e., SNiP), Eurocode 7 (EC7), Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code (CHBDC), and AASHTO for the pile foundation design subjected to NSF and provide insights for the understanding effect of NSF on the behavior of pile foundation. The overall objective is achieved by designing three cases of a driven pile for given design conditions in Astana city. Then, a sensitivity analysis was performed to estimate the effects of the dimensions of the pile foundation and the shear strength of soils on the bearing resistance. The comparative analysis shows that pile foundation design adhering to CHBDC and AASHTO results in a more conservative strategy than SNiP and EC7 when considering Kazakhstani soil engineering conditions.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".