Axial compressive response of large-capacity helical and driven steel piles in cohesive soil
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The axial compression performance of large-capacity helical piles is of significant interest because they can offer an efficient alternative to conventional piling systems in many applications such as in oil processing facilities, transmission towers, and industrial buildings. This paper presents the results of seven full-scale axial compression load tests conducted on 6.0 and 9.0 m large-capacity helical piles and a 6.0 m driven steel pile. The results are considered essential to qualify and quantify the performance characteristics of large-capacity helical piles in cohesive soils. The test piles were close-ended steel shafts with an outer diameter of 324 mm. The test helical piles were either single or double helix, with a helix diameter of 610 mm and interhelix spacing that varied between 1.5 and 4.5 times the helix diameter. The subsurface soil properties at the test site were determined using field and laboratory testing methods. The 6.0 m piles were tested 2 weeks after installation, while the 9.0 m piles were tested 9 months after installation. The load–settlement curves were presented to better understand the behaviour of test piles. An ultimate capacity criterion was proposed to estimate the ultimate load of large-capacity helical piles. The test helical piles developed ultimate resistances up to 1.2–1.8 times that of the driven pile. The load-transfer mechanisms of large-capacity helical piles were studied, and it was found that soil disturbance during pile installation had a significant effect on the pile failure mechanism regardless the value of the interhelix spacing to helix diameter ratio. The mobilized soil strength parameters were back-calculated and compared with the estimated intact soil strength parameters.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".