MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1987549505 · doi:10.1139/t00-049

Evaluation of axial performance of tapered piles from centrifuge tests

2000· article· en· W1987549505 on OpenAlexfundvenueno aff
M. Hesham El Naggar, Mohammed Sakr

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil Mechanics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsCentrifugePileGeotechnical engineeringStructural engineeringBearing capacityEngineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 K t . The comparison showed a reasonable agreement between K t values 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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.161
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.200
Teacher spread0.188 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations84
Published2000
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Geotechnical JournalSame topicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil MechanicsFrench-language works237,207