Stability and load-displacement behaviour of axially cyclic loaded displacement piles in sands
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Uncertainties regarding the axial cyclic behaviour of piles driven into sands led to an extended programme of calibration chamber instrumented pile experiments. Broad trends are identified and interpreted with reference to normalised cyclic loading parameters Qcyclic/QT, Qmean/QT, and N. Cyclic damage is shown to be related to changes in the radial effective stress regime close to the shaft. While stable loading leads to little or no change as cycling continues in the sand masses’ effective stress regime, high-level cyclic loading can affect stresses far out into the sand mass. The ratio of the chamber diameter to pile diameter of the test system has a significant impact on outcomes. Piles installed in loose, fine sand are far more susceptible to cyclic loading than those installed in denser, coarser sand. Little or no change in pile stiffness was seen in tests that remained within the stable cyclic region, even over 10 000 or more cycles. Unstable tests lost their stiffness rapidly and metastable cases showed intermediate behaviours. The permanent deflections developed under cycling depend on the combined influence of Qcyclic/QT, Qmean/QT, and N. While model tests provide many valuable insights into the behaviour of piles driven into sand, they are unable to capture some key features observed in the field.
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".