Dynamic response of vertically loaded helical and driven steel piles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The dynamic performance of helical piles is of significant interest because such piles can offer an efficient alternative to conventional piling systems in many applications where the foundation is subjected to dynamic loads. This paper presents the results of full-scale dynamic vertical load tests on a 9.0 m double-helix, large-capacity helical pile and a driven steel pile of the same length and shaft geometry. Comparing the results is considered necessary to evaluate, qualitatively and quantitatively, the dynamic performance characteristics of large-capacity helical piles. The test piles were closed-ended steel shafts with an outer diameter of 324 mm. The piles were subjected to harmonic (quadratic) loading of different force intensities acting within a frequency range that covered the resonant frequencies of the tested pile–soil–cap systems. The dynamic and static properties of the subsurface soil adjacent to the test piles were determined using the seismic cone penetration technique and the conventional soil boring and testing methods. In addition, field observations are compared with calculated responses using the program DYNA 6 to better understand the pile–soil interaction for the case of helical piles. The effects of soil nonlinearity and pile–soil separation were accounted for in the analysis by employing a weak boundary zone around the piles in the analytical model. The experimental results show that the dynamic behaviour of helical piles is essentially the same as that of driven steel piles with the same geometric properties (without the helix plates). In addition, it was demonstrated that the program DYNA 6 can accurately simulate the behaviour of both helical and driven 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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".