MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415633244 · doi:10.1139/cgj-2025-0347

Field test on thermally induced bending behaviour of energy pile adjacent to slope in a plateau area

2025· article· en· W4415633244 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Gangqiang Kong, Hanlong Liu

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnergy
TopicGeothermal Energy Systems and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsPileBending momentFoundation (evidence)Plateau (mathematics)Stress (linguistics)BendingThermalHysteresisThermoelastic damping

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

When energy piles serve as foundation pit support, slope anti-sliding, and foundation reinforcement near slopes, the coupling effect of horizontal loading and thermal loading needs to be considered. Studies have investigated the mechanism of axially load-bearing energy piles in symmetric environments, but analyses of the behaviour of horizontal load-bearing energy piles in complex asymmetric environments are lacking. This study investigated the thermomechanical responses of an energy pile in plateau environments, with an emphasis on slope-induced effects within cobble-dominated stratigraphic layers. By analysing hysteresis phenomena under continuous and intermittent thermal loading strategies, the evolution of temperature change and cross-sectional stresses was examined, and the corresponding bending moments were referred to. Under heating conditions, the change in the bending moment state is influenced by the combined effects of the cross-sectional temperature difference, pile–soil constraint state, and pile/soil stress state. The bending moment of the slope-proximity pile is redistributed, considering that the second-order effect caused by thermal restraint stress dominates the behaviour at the pile middle. Derived from the recoverable behaviours of the pile, the pile–soil interaction can be considered thermoelastic in this plateau area.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.637
Threshold uncertainty score0.755

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.223 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Geotechnical JournalSame topicGeothermal Energy Systems and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207