MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401068234 · doi:10.1139/cgj-2024-0171

Investigation of Cyclic Thermo-mechanical Interactions in Pile Groups under Varying Thermal Loading

2024· article· en· W4401068234 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Rajni Saggu

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical and Geomechanical Engineering
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPileGeotechnical engineeringThermalMaterials scienceStructural engineeringForensic engineeringGeologyEngineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this study, numerical investigations were performed to examine the thermo-mechanical characteristics of the geothermal pile group having geothermal and conventional piles arranged under a single pile cap. The geothermal piles were subjected to varying degrees of thermal loading, over five thermal cycles of heating and cooling. The piles and pile cap were simulated to behave in a linear-elastic manner, and the soil was simulated using the Mohr-Coulomb plasticity model. The analyses were performed for the pile groups having different pile spacing. The investigation findings indicate that the interactions between piles, pile cap, and the surrounding soil become intricate due to cyclic thermal loading and unloading of the geothermal piles. The thermal consequences induced by cyclic temperature variations are more pronounced in the corner geothermal pile and the side conventional pile sustains more significant thermally induced effects than the central conventional pile. Differential cyclic pile displacements in the pile cap leads to varying load distribution among all the piles. The pile location plays a significant role in determining the uneven distribution of loads within the piles and the soil. Further, the magnitude of thermal load and thermal cycles govern the load-displacement mechanism of the pile cap, piles, and supporting soil.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.387
Threshold uncertainty score0.857

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.195 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Geotechnical JournalSame topicGeotechnical and Geomechanical EngineeringFrench-language works237,207