Full-scale field tests on directly embedded steel pole foundations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The results of eight full-scale tests on directly embedded steel pole foundations are presented. Fully instrumented poles were tested to measure the various design parameters. Different types of backfills such as sand, in situ gravelly sand, crushed stone, and flowable material were used. Various parameters were measured, including applied moment, ground line deflection-rotation, rotation of the pole below the ground level, soil pressures, and bending moments in the poles. The behaviour of these foundations was explained through ultimate capacity and moment-rotation characteristics. Based on these test results, it was found that the capacity of the directly embedded pole foundation depends primarily on the compaction levels of backfill and the embedment length of the pole. Flowable backfill material, which does not require any compaction, was found to be most effective and promising. Even when the backfill was loose, the lateral capacity significantly increased by the addition of a baseplate or by installing the pole with an additional embedment depth. Various theories developed for laterally loaded rigid piles were used to predict the moment-rotation behaviour and the ultimate capacity of the directly embedded pole foundation with different types of backfill material. Results from the analytical investigations were compared with those obtained from the full-scale load tests. Comparisons show that the ultimate capacities predicted by the models ranged from 0.30 to 2.20 times the measured capacities.Key words: backfill, compaction, full-scale tests, laterally loaded rigid piles, transmission steel poles, ultimate moment.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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 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".