Bibliographic record
Abstract
A flood barrier is planned for construction to resist expected extreme load events.Given the challenging subsurface stratigraphy at the subject site, a number of cased micropiles of different configurations were proposed to support the wall.The micropiles have been designed using the available guidelines in literature.The piles were installed with different injection pressures to evaluate the effects on the piles' load-carrying capacity.A number of sacrificial piles were then instrumented and field-tested in compression, tension, and lateral loads.The results of the tests were analyzed, interpreted, and compared to the available theoretical design methodologies in the literature.As well, the tests were simulated using some of the available Geotechnical design software packages.The results showed that some of the available design methodologies in the literature may overestimate the axial stiffness of micropiles.On the other hand, the results showed that the p-y curve methodology provided a reasonable representation of the piles' lateral behavior.Examining the installation records showed the significant impact of the grouting pressure on the grout-to-ground bond strength and ultimately the piles' axial resistance.The results of the load tests of piles installed with a wide range of pressures are discussed.The possible interaction between the piles during installation was also noted.Finally, the contribution of the end bearing on the piles' resistance was also quantified, the former being typically ignored in the design of micropiles.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".