MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386698411 · doi:10.1139/cgj-2023-0054

Field investigation on a pilot energy piled retaining wall

2023· article· en· W4386698411 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Yu Zhong, Guillermo A. Narsilio, Nikolas Makasis, Luis Villegas

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnergy
TopicGeothermal Energy Systems and Applications
Canadian institutionsGeomechanica (Canada)
FundersRWTH Aachen UniversityState Government of VictoriaUniversity of Melbourne
KeywordsPileGeotechnical engineeringBoreholeThermalRigidity (electromagnetism)Structural engineeringPile capHeat exchangerThermal energyEngineeringGeologyMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study presents the thermal and thermo-mechanical responses of a pilot energy wall located in Melbourne, Australia, which is believed to be one of the first instrumented energy soldier piled walls in the world. The full-scale field thermal and thermo-mechanical conditions of the wall were monitored during the period of a full-cycle thermal response test (TRT) conducted on a single soldier pile over 2 months. The monitored pile and ground temperature responses reveal the significance of the thermal condition in the excavated space on the thermal performance of such energy geostructures, which increases complexities in design and analysis. Furthermore, this study reports the profiles of axial strains and induced thermal stresses in the tested soldier pile, demonstrating how the applied thermal load from the TRT influenced the mechanical performance of the pile and wall and how the restrictive action of the support elements controlled the induced conditions. Here, we show that soldier pile responds differently from energy piles or borehole heat exchangers; however, residual axial strains were minimal and similar to those reported in energy piles foundations due to a thermo-elastic response to the imposed thermal loads and wall rigidity. Finally, the unique experimental dataset is made available for further studies.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.862
Threshold uncertainty score0.945

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.195 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations16
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Geotechnical JournalSame topicGeothermal Energy Systems and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207