Uplift behaviour of tapered piles established from model tests
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tapered piles have a substantial advantage with regard to their load-carrying capacity in the downward frictional mode. The uplift performance of tapered piles, however, has not been fully understood. This paper describes the results of an experimental investigation into the characteristics of the uplift performance of tapered piles. Three instrumented steel piles with different degrees of taper were installed in cohesionless soil and subjected to compressive and tensile load tests. The soil was contained in a steel soil chamber and pressurized using an air bladder to facilitate modelling the confining pressures pertinent to larger embedment depths. The results of this study indicated that the pile axial uplift capacity increased with an increase in the confining pressure for all piles examined in this study. The ratios of uplift to compressive load for tapered piles were less than those for straight piles of the same length and average embedded diameter. The uplift capacity of tapered piles was found to be comparable to that of straight-sided wall piles at higher confining pressure values, suggesting that the performance of actual tapered piles (with greater length) would be comparable to that of straight-sided wall piles. Also, the results indicated that residual stresses developed during the compressive loading phase and their effect were more significant on the initial uplift capacity of piles, and this effect was more pronounced for tapered piles in medium-dense sand.Key words: tapered piles, uplift, axial response, load transfer, experimental modelling.
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".