Evaluation of axial performance of tapered piles from centrifuge tests
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The performance of tapered piles under axial compressive loading was investigated using centrifuge model tests. Model tapered and cylindrical piles were installed in cohesionless soil and subjected to axial loading. The objectives of this study were to understand the performance characteristics of tapered piles and develop a rational approach for their design. The results of axial compressive loading tests on 12 one-tenth scale model piles with different taper angles in a centrifuge setup are presented and discussed. Six piles were instrumented and six piles were not. The load distribution along the shaft of instrumented piles was measured and the results were compared with an analytical solution in terms of the taper coefficient Kt. The comparison showed a reasonable agreement between Ktvalues established from the experiments and those obtained from the analytical solution. A simple rational approach was proposed for the design of tapered piles. The proposed approach was used to calculate the bearing capacity of the tested piles, and reasonable agreement with the measured values was obtained. The results of this study suggest that the pile taper should be limited to the top 20-25 pile diameters of the pile length for optimum efficiency.Key words: tapered piles, pile capacity, axial performance, centrifuge modeling, shaft resistance.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".