Axial Load Tests on Drilled Shafts Socketed in Hard Clays and Shales
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An investigation into the load-settlement behavior of two drilled shafts, founded in shale, is presented. The motivation for this research is to advance the understanding on how drilled shafts react under loading in stiff clays and shales. The objective of this study is to improve the understanding of axial capacities for rock-socketed shafts in hard clays and shales. In order to achieve this objective, the research team measured the strengths within the subsurface material at the test site, estimated the unit side shear and unit end bearing of the shale-shaft interaction by running two axial load tests using the patented Osterberg-Cell (O-Cell) loading technique, and compared the results to the current design methods that are used to predict the axial capacity of drilled shafts. The results of the study concluded that the current methods for estimating unit end bearing developed by the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) provide fairly accurate predictions when compared to the measured information However, it was discovered that the measured ultimate side resistance steadily decreased nearing the tip of the shaft. A limited amount of information is currently available for load tests performed in soils with Texas Cone Penetration (TCP) values harder than 2-in per 100 blows. The results presented herein demonstrate the effectiveness of the current design methods for drilled shafts and the non-uniformity of side resistance within one- to two-diameters of the shaft 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".