Uplift behavior of nodular diaphragm wall: Experiment and theory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The nodular diaphragm wall (NDW) is a novel foundation that can provide significant uplift load resistance compared to a typical diaphragm wall foundation. With the advantages of low noise, cost‐effectiveness, high work efficiency, and construction abilities close to existing buildings, NDW has excellent engineering application prospects in urbanization construction. However, the scarce knowledge on the uplift resistance, failure mode, and calculation method of the NDW has hindered its application in practice. In this paper, indoor model tests based on particle image velocimetry (PIV) technology are carried out to investigate the uplift behavior of three NDW models with different amounts and locations of nodular parts. The load transfer mechanisms of the three NDW models are discussed in detail, and special attention is given to the failure mode analysis. In addition, a theoretical analysis is implemented based on the load transfer approach. The transfer function and associated critical parameters are discussed in detail. Accordingly, an iterative procedure is proposed to interpret the load transfer information of an uplift NDW in multilayered soils under different loading levels. The findings derived in this paper are helpful to the uplift deformation, capacity calculation, and design of NDW in practical engineering.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".