Axial testing and numerical modeling of square shaft helical piles under compressive and tensile loading
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Helical piles are increasingly used to support and rehabilitate structures subjected to both tensile and compressive axial loads. This paper presents a detailed investigation into the axial performance of helical piles. The study encompasses 19 full-scale load tests in different soils and numerical modeling using finite element analysis. The ultimate load criteria and load transfer mechanisms for helical piles were examined. In addition, the relationship between the installation effort (torque) and pile capacity was explored to determine its suitability for predicting pile capacity. The piles tested were made of three circular pitched bearing plates welded at a spacing of three helical diameters to a solid-square, slender steel shaft. It is proposed to determine the ultimate pile capacity as the load corresponding to pile head movement equal to 8% of the largest helix diameter plus the pile elastic deflection. A torque correlation factor, KT= 33 m–1for compression and KT= 24 m–1for uplift, was established to relate the ultimate pile capacity to the installation torque. It was found that load transfer to the soil is predominantly through a cylindrical shear failure surface that follows the tapered profile of the interhelices soils and the bearing capacity of the lead helix in the direction of 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".