MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4400441959 · doi:10.1139/cgj-2024-0004

Kinematic response of floating single piles in saturated and nearly-saturated soil to P-waves

2024· article· en· W4400441959 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
George Kouretzis, Xuanming Ding

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicSeismic Imaging and Inversion Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsGeotechnical engineeringGeologyKinematicsKinematic waveSoil liquefactionSoil waterLiquefactionSoil sciencePhysicsClassical mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents closed-form expressions for the analysis of floating single piles subjected to vertically propagating harmonic P-waves. The foundation soil is treated as poroelastic medium, and can be either fully-saturated or nearly-saturated. We show that the existence of non-continuous air phase in the form of air bubbles dissolved in the pore water will have noteworthy effect on the vertical kinematic response of piles. Through parametric analyses, we demonstrate that hydromechanical analysis techniques that consider soil as fully saturated may significantly over-estimate pile head displacements for frequencies relevant to seismic P-waves. In addition, we quantify differences in the response between end-bearing and floating piles, and show that these differences are more prominent when soil is not fully saturated. Although the proposed expressions have been derived while considering elastic soil and pile response, findings relevant to the effect of the degree of soil saturation to the vertical kinematic response of piles are generally applicable to any coupled stress-flow analysis method.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.202 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Geotechnical Journal→Same topicSeismic Imaging and Inversion Techniques→French-language works237,207→