Field test on cross-sectional behaviors of a retaining energy pile subjected to horizontal loads
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Energy piles may be utilized for retaining structures, embankment reinforcements, and building foundations on a slope. In this study, a field test of a retaining energy pile subjected to horizontal loads has been carried out. The pile was subjected to thermal and thermo-mechanical loads before and after a pit excavation of 6 m deep, respectively. The non-uniform thermal and mechanical response at the cross-section due to heating and horizontal-load-induced bending has been recorded. A simplified mechanism of the normal strain and stress at the pile cross-section was introduced to infer the thermo-mechanical behavior of the energy pile. The results show that the restraint of the retaining pile markedly decreased at the depth of 1.5 and 4.0 m under the thermo-mechanical loads, compared to the case subjected to thermal load only. The bending behaviors (bending moment and horizontal displacement) indicate that there is a 10%–15% increase in bending moment when the energy pile was heated after the pit excavation. This effect needs to be considered at the most unfavorable section position. A possible positive effect is that heating up is beneficial for reducing the risk of tensile crack at the pile section due to the thermal compressive stress.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".