Seismic response of hollow fibre-reinforced polymer (FRP) piles in soft clay using shaking table tests
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed at investigating the seismic performance of hollow fibre-reinforced polymer (FRP) piles compared to traditional piles in soft clay deposits using shaking table tests. A laminar shear box with dimensions of 1.0 × 1.0 × 1.0 m was used to contain the soil medium and allow it to respond similarly to the free field. Two types of composite group piles (2 × 2) made of carbon fibre-reinforced polymer and glass fibre-reinforced polymer, along with aluminium piles, were manufactured and embedded as end-bearing piles within the soil. Several monitoring instruments were used to observe the soil–pile response under variety of ground motions adopted from the 2010 Val-des-Bois Earthquake in Canada and the 1995 Kobe Earthquake. Seismic response of the foundation was strongly dependent on the stiffness provided by the soil, which was a function of the degree of softening and intensity of shaking. The foundation motion of model piles was higher than those of the free field mainly because of strong kinematic soil–pile interaction. Among the model piles, FRP piles revealed lower foundation motion due to their lower flexural stiffness compared to aluminium piles. This could make FRP piles a remarkably viable option compared to conventional piles under seismic loading.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".