MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2587818013 · doi:10.1139/cgj-2016-0156

Large-diameter helical pile capacity – torque correlations

2017· article· en· W2587818013 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Jared Louis Harnish, M. Hesham El Naggar

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil Mechanics
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityThompson Rivers University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPileTorqueShearing (physics)Geotechnical engineeringStructural engineeringLoad testingEngineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Large-diameter helical piles are utilized increasingly to support heavy structures. Both the magnitude of the required installation torque and the pile capacity can be directly attributed to the soil shearing resistance developed over the embedded area of the pile including the shaft and helical plates. Hence, the pile capacity can be correlated to installation torque. Such correlations are widely used in the helical pile industry as a means for quality control and quality assurance. In the current study, a total of 10 test piles were installed while monitoring the installation torque continuously with depth. The recorded installation torque profiles were demonstrated to be accurate and repeatable. Field pile load tests were conducted and their results were analyzed to determine the interpreted ultimate capacity of the test piles. The results demonstrate that the ultimate capacity of large-diameter helical piles can be interpreted from pile load test data employing the failure criteria proposed by Elkasabgy and El Naggar in 2015 and Fuller and Hoy in 1970. The measured installation torque and corresponding ultimate capacity values were employed to define torque–capacity correlation (K t ) based on embedded pile area. It was demonstrated that the proposed K t is suitable for large-diameter 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.756
Threshold uncertainty score0.933

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.191 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations43
Published2017
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Geotechnical JournalSame topicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil MechanicsFrench-language works237,207