LATERAL LOAD ON SINGLE PILES: A COMPARATIVE STUDY BETWEEN EGYPTIAN CODE, CANADIAN CODE, AASHTO, INDIAN STANDARDS AND THEORETICAL APPROACH
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The lateral loading pile problem is frequently solved by assuming that the pile is an elastic element and that the soil may be represented by a sequence of nonlinear horizontal springs. The P-y curves illustrate the soil springs' nonlinear behaviour. There are many ways, in literature and adopted in codes to calculate the displacement, ultimate, and allowable lateral load resulting from applying horizontal forces on a vertical pile. The aim of this study is to determine which codes and equations give the most accurate result in ultimate and allowable lateral load for available measurements and case studies. A study was conducted on 40 field and laboratory experiments under different soil conditions and different locations. The Egyptian, Canadian, British standard, AASHTO, DIN 4014 and Indian standards, as well as the Jean-Louis-Briaud method were used to determine the ultimate, and allowable lateral load values and compare them with field and laboratory measurements. The Canadian, British standard, and AASHTO, use broom’s method to calculate ultimate, and allowable lateral load [1] [2] [3] .German code uses an approximate method to find the maximum lateral displacement of 2cm or equal to 0.03D [4] .
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".