Cone penetration test (CPT) methods for end-bearing assessment of open- and closed-ended driven piles in siliceous sand
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The cone penetration test (CPT) has been used as a means of assessing the end bearing of driven piles in sand for many decades. This paper examines the predictive performance of four new such CPT-based methods recently included in the commentary of the 22nd edition of the American Petroleum Institute’s recommended practice for fixed offshore structures. It is demonstrated that the formulations given by one of these methods, referred to as UWA-05, provides better predictions than the three other CPT methods when tested against (i) an existing database of base-capacity measurements, (ii) results from a new series of load tests on small-diameter piles, and (iii) base capacities measured in two recently conducted load tests on 1.5 m diameter pipe piles. It is shown that the UWA-05 has better predictive performance (and hence reliability) as it accounts explicitly for the effects of partial plugging during pipe–pile installation and for variations in CPT resistance in the vicinity of the pile tip.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".