Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Tapered piles have a substantial advantage over straight-sided wall piles with regard to their load-carrying capacity in the downward frictional mode; however, their behavior under cyclic axial loading has not been investigated. In this study, the characteristics of the cyclic response of tapered piles were established from experimental investigation. A large laboratory facility for testing model piles was developed. In this facility, the soil was contained in a steel chamber and pressurized using an air bladder to model the confining pressure. Three instrumented steel model piles with different degrees of taper were installed in loose sand and subjected to two-way cyclic axial load tests. The results of this study indicated that the pile stiffness under cyclic loading increased with an increase in the confining pressure for all piles examined in this study. Moreover, the pile stiffness increased through cyclic loading due to the densification of the sand surrounding the pile. The amplitude of the cyclic load had a significant effect on the performance of the piles. As a result, it is recommended that the amplitude of the cyclic load be limited to 25% of the static axial capacity and 75% of the static uplift capacity to ensure satisfactory performance of tapered piles. This requirement is readily satisfied in the design of most piles. In this case, the performance of tapered piles under cyclic axial load was found to be superior to that of straight-sided wall 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 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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".