Compression testing and analysis of drilled concrete tapered piles in cohesive-frictional soil
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When pile driving is difficult and (or) economically not viable, cast-in-place piles are indispensable. Tapered piles, which have top cross-sections larger than the bottom cross-sections, have the potential for substantial advantages over conventional straight-sided piles. This paper investigates the construction and performance of innovative drilled concrete tapered piles. A full-scale pile load-testing program was conducted to evaluate the axial compressive capacity of drilled concrete tapered piles in frictional soil. One straight and three tapered augers were designed and manufactured to produce six piles. The piles that were constructed and tested included four tapered and two straight piles. The testing results showed that tapered piles with a taper angle varying between 0.95° and 1.91° had a load carrying capacity up to 50% higher than the straight-sided piles with equal volume. It should be noted, however, that the experimental results are site specific. Moreover, an analytical expression was developed to evaluate the pile taper effect on its shaft capacity in terms of a taper coefficient, Kt. The value of Ktevaluated from the analytical expression compared well with experimentally measured values. Finally, a two dimensional nonlinear finite element analysis was conducted to simulate the load test conditions, and it proved to be successful.
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) | 0.001 | 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".