Evaluation and analysis of pullout strength in pile group embedded in sandy soil using PLAXIS 3D
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The pullout strength of pile foundations is a critical factor influencing the stability of underground and waterfront structures, especially when subjected to uplift pressures. This study examines the uplift capacity of model hollow circular aluminum piles, both as single units and in group configurations, with outer diameters of 2.54 cm and varying lengths of 60, 75, and 90 cm. Experimental investigations were conducted on pile groups arranged in 2 × 1, 2 × 2, and 2 × 3 configurations, maintaining a constant length-to-diameter ( L/ d) ratio of 24, 30, and 36. The spacing-to-diameter ( S/ d) ratio varied between 3, 4, and 5. The experimental results obtained strong validation from PLAXIS 3D numerical analyses that matched the experimental data. Rising pile embedment depth and spacing quantities lead to higher pullout strength levels. The evaluation of nondimensional parameters reveals the correlations between pile group uplift strength and embedment depth together with pile spacing. These research findings help foundation engineers to design piles for better uplift resistance, which results in better foundation practice improvements.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".