Testing and Analysis of Tapered Pile Response under Vertical Loading in Loose and Dense Cohesionless Material
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When the shallow foundations resting on the surficial soil layers do not satisfy the design requirements of these layers for sufficient bearing capacity and/or settlement, the common solution is to transfer the building loads from this layer to a strong lower layer using pile foundations. There is a wide range of pile foundations with different cross sections and materials, and in recent years, tapered piles have received attention due to their assured pile quality and enhanced load-carrying capacity. Piles with variable cross-sections along the length are reported to be more economical than common uniform diameter/size piles The interesting fact is that tapered piles are used only in a few countries, despite having several advantages over uniform-diameter piles. This may be because of the lack of understanding about their distinctive behavior and the lack of rational design guidelines. The shaft resistance of tapered piles is found to be higher than that of cylindrical piles due to the inclined shaft surface of tapered piles Along with the pile's area or volume, different soil conditions and taper angles may also affect the ultimate resistance of the tapered piles which needs investigation.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".