Axial compressive capacity of driven piles in sand: a method including post-driving residual stresses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, empirical formulae were developed between the well-known pile bearing capacity factors (Nqand β) and parameters which include friction angle of sand, relative density, average effective vertical stress, and deformability of the soil below the pile toe. The developed empirical formulae were totally based on a database comprised of 28 well-documented compressive pile load tests collected exclusively from geotechnical literature. The actual measurements of shaft and end-bearing resistances of each pile in the database were adjusted to account for post-driving residual loads. Calculation of pile bearing capacity factors (Nqand β) was based on the adjusted shaft and end-bearing resistances rather than the actual unadjusted measured resistances for residual loads. Comparison of predicted and measured compressive capacity of an independent database comprised of 18 pile load tests showed that the developed formulae yield a reasonably accurate estimate of compressive pile capacity in cohesionless soils.Key words: driven piles, residual load, toe resistance, 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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".