Bond strength of concrete plugs embedded in tubular steel piles under cyclic loading
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Investigation of the load transfer of concrete plugs to tubular steel piles subjected to tension and compression and cyclic loading has been conducted at Monash University over the past 3 years. The work presented in this paper reports on the results of the combination of pull-out, push-out, and cyclic loading tests carried out on 15 steel tube specimens filled partially with reinforced concrete with variable lengths of embedment. The pull-out force was applied through steel reinforcing bars embedded in the concrete plug, and push-out forces were applied through a thick top circular plate on the top of the concrete plug. Test results included the cyclic loading, ultimate pull-out and push-out forces, slip of concrete plugs, and longitudinal and hoop strains along the piles for some specimens. The tests clearly showed that average bond strength significantly exceeds expectations and is higher than the results of previous investigations using plugs without reinforcement. The test results also indicated that cyclic loading tests reduced the bond strength due to the accumulation of damage to the plug–pile interface. The push-out and pull-out tests conducted under symmetric cyclic loading demonstrated that slip between the concrete plug and the steel tube increased with repeated loading, and the rate of slip growth increased with an increase in the peak load.Key words: tubular steel pile, reinforced concrete plug, bond, cyclic 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".