Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract An experimental study was performed to investigate the performance of tapered and cylindrical piles driven into loose sand using the geotechnical centrifuge located at C-CORE, Memorial University, Newfoundland. Twelve open-ended model piles with different configurations, instrumented externally along the shaft, were successfully installed and load tested using the facility. The piles were driven at 1 g, and the loading tests were conducted at 10 g. The paper discusses the design of model piles and details of loading equipment and presents the results of axial compression tests. The results obtained showed that modeling tapered and cylindrical piles with different length-to-diameter ratios was successfully achieved. The external instrumentation technique used in this study proved to be efficient. The surface ronghness effect was found to be important and must be considered when interpreting the test results. The raining technique used in this study produced reasonably uniform soil samples. It was found that as the taper angle increased the shaft resistance increased, and the shaft resistance of the tapered pile was up to 185 % larger than that of the equivalent cylindrical pile. It was also found that the values of the combined shaft resistance factor β for cylindrical piles were consistent with Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual (1992) guidelines. In the case of tapered piles, β values were found to be 80 % higher than those for cylindrical piles, whereas the CFEM design guidelines suggest they should be 30 to 50 % higher. The effect of the taper established from experimental results compared well with the results obtained from an analytical solution based on cavity expansion theory.
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 | 0.001 | 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".