Axial Behaviour of Hollow Core Micropiles Under Monotonic and Cyclic Loadings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The use of hollow core bars in micropiles has greatly increased over the past ten years. Hollow core construction, also termed self drilled, is becoming a popular option because it allows a faster installation processes and ground improvement at the same time. This paper presents a field study on the behaviour of single hollow core micropiles in stiff silty clay deposit. Four hollow core micropiles were installed using an air flushing technique employing large drilling carbide bits. Ten axial tests were conducted on the four micropiles, including three compression tests, two tension monotonic axial tests, four compression cyclic tests, and one tension cyclic axial tests. The results of the full-scale loading tests are presented and analyzed in terms of load displacement curves. The results of the monotonic testing phase showed that the bond strength values (αbond) suggested by the Federal Highway Administration in 2000 for the silty clay deposits may be underestimated when considering hollow core micropiles as type B micropile grouting. The response of the micropiles to cyclic loading is considered satisfactory. No sign of full debonding occurring at the pile-soil interface was observed after 15 load cycles with cyclic load amplitude of 33 % of the micropile design load. The stiffness of most micropiles remained almost constant after the cyclic loading. However, the pile head movement increased after the cyclic loading due to limited strain softening behaviour of the soil deposit occurs at the grout/ground interface. The results showed that the micopile’s performance in stiff clay is not sensitive to minor changes in cyclic load amplitudes, but sensitive to the magnitude and rate of the total applied load.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".