Evaluation of prediction models for tip resistances of rock-socketed drilled shafts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study compiled a database called CYCU/RockTip/51 consisting of 51 rock-socketed drilled shafts installed at different sites worldwide, covering a wide variety of rock properties and shaft geometries. The tip resistances from seven representative prediction models were compared with the measured values. These measured values were obtained from the load–displacement curves of field load tests using three interpretation criteria. It was found that the prediction models of Teng, Coates, Rowe and Armitage, and ARGEMA overpredicted the measured capacity, while Zhang and Einstein, Vipulanandan et al. and Zhang are less biased. These tip prediction models also could be classified according to displacement requirements. The proposed tip prediction models of this study are presented based on different interpretation methods and the displacement ranges that they are mobilized. Finally, the normalized load–displacement curve was fitted to the hyperbolic curve with two model parameters ( a and b). The parameters a and b define the reciprocal of the initial slope and the asymptotic resistance, respectively. The statistics of ( b, a) for rock-socketed drilled shafts in CYCU/RockTip/51 are mean = (0.76, 1.09), COV = (0.13, 0.59), and correlation coefficient = −0.79. These statistics are useful for reliability-based design.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| 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".