Field investigation of the axial resistance of helical piles in dense sand
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents the results of compression and tension load tests performed on a single helical pile installed in dense sand. The pile was instrumented using strain gauges that allowed the shaft and base load resistance to be separated and the distribution of shaft resistance along the pile during the test to be determined. The pile was loaded first in compression, with a maintained load test, followed by a constant rate of penetration load test being performed to assess the effects of creep on the pile’s response to compression loading. The pile was then loaded in tension using a maintained load test procedure. Finite element analyses were performed using Abaqus and these helped to provide additional insights to explain the response of the instrumented pile during loading. The test showed that during compression loading, substantial bearing pressures developed beneath the pile helix, which provided the majority of axial load resistance. During tension loading, uplift pressure mobilized on the helix again provided the majority of axial resistance. The strain gauges suggested that the pile load response to compression loading was ductile. During tension loading, the pile response was brittle. Whilst load tests performed on only one instrumented pile test are presented, the use of instrumentation and finite element analyses allowed important insights into the load–displacement response of helical piles.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".