Analysis of the geotechnical behavior of a piled raft in tropical lateritic soil based on long-term monitoring of columns, piles, and raft–soil interface
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper aims to analyze and describe the geotechnical behavior of a piled raft foundation of a tall building (53 floors, 172.4 m high) through the monitoring of strains in the building’s columns and piles, the stresses at the raft–soil interface, and the foundation settlements. Field and laboratory tests were performed, and associated with axisymmetric and three-dimensional finite element analysis to the assessment of the measured data. The monitoring of the pile strains suggests the occurrence of soil expansion, caused by the raft excavation process, up to approximately 6 months after the excavation was completed. The presence of different soil profiles under the raft, with different mechanical properties, affected the distribution of the foundation settlements and the pile loads. Initially, the average pile loads were concentrated in the perimeter elements, but, as the construction of the building evolved, they tended to become more uniform. The effect of the superstructure stiffness caused successive load redistributions in the columns, which contributed to the maintenance of the maximum angular distortion of the building within the allowable values and reduced the load difference between the piles positioned in opposite soil profiles.
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 | 0.001 | 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 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".