Experimental Behavior of Structurally Different Pile Foundations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper compares the seismic design, construction, and performance of three heavily instrumented, large-scale foundation elements subject to reverse-cyclic loading until complete failure. Piles were designed with the p–y analysis framework, embedded in identical sandy soil conditions, but consisted of three structurally distinct load elements: a 16-in. reinforced concrete pile, a 16-in. steel pipe pile, and a 16-in. concrete-filled steel tube. All piles had a free-head boundary condition, were 16 ft in length, and were embedded in poorly graded sand with a relative density of 25%–30%. Subjected to an identical loading protocol displacing the piles laterally up to 10 in., the piles revealed substantially different performance behavior, which will be compared at various stages during the loading protocol and assessed against their analytical and numerical predictions. This study presents experimental results on cyclic performance up to structural failure, comparing design reliability, performance capacity, constructability, and sustainability for deep foundations under seismic loading conditions. Across all three pile specimens, the p–y analysis over-predicted initial pile stiffness and under-predicted maximum pile resistance to lateral loading.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".