MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406352081 · doi:10.1139/cgj-2024-0173

A simplified soil–structure interaction model for load–settlement analysis of piles

2025· article· en· W4406352081 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Tuan A. Pham, Recep Akan, Abdollah Tabaroei

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil Stabilization
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeotechnical engineeringSettlement (finance)Soil structure interactionPileGeologyEnvironmental scienceEngineeringForensic engineeringStructural engineeringFinite element methodComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The full skin friction and full end-bearing resistances of a single pile are not mobilized at the same displacement, while the conventional approach often oversimplifies by adding the skin friction to the end-bearing resistance as independent calculation steps. This paper presents a simplified interaction approach for the nonlinear load–settlement analysis of a single pile considering simultaneously the degradation of skin friction resistance and end-bearing resistance hardening under varying loads. The ability to estimate the load–settlement response of piles based on either needed loads or settlement is a special benefit of the proposed approach over existing methods. In addition, the proposed model is able to separate the skin friction resistance, end-bearing resistance, and elastic compression at arbitrary settlement. The analytical method shown a satisfactory performance as compared to experimental results for three extensively studied field test situations. The suggested approach shows promise as a suitable solution for the design optimization as well as the preliminary analysis to organize a suitable loading test program. A parametric analysis is conducted to further examine the influence of various significant parameters related to the load–settlement response of piles.

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.953
Threshold uncertainty score0.571

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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.222 · 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

Citations10
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Geotechnical JournalSame topicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil StabilizationFrench-language works237,207