Laboratory study on pullout capacity of helical soil nail in cohesionless soil
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Helical nails are a new alternative to conventional soil nails or tie-backs for stabilization of slopes, excavations, and embankments due to ease of installation, minimal site disturbance, and immediate loading capability. Pullout capacity of helical nails is a critical parameter for their design. This study investigates the pullout behaviour of helical soil nails installed in dry dense sand through a series of laboratory tests. The tests were performed on seven different types of helical nails in a displacement-controlled manner. The paper describes the test procedure, results and highlights the influence of different parameters on the pullout capacity. Results show that roughness of the nail shaft significantly influences the peak pullout capacity of helical soil nails. A linear relationship between peak pullout force and overburden pressure is observed for different types of helical soil nails, indicating that it satisfies the Mohr–Coulomb failure criteria. A helical soil nail having a double helix of unequal diameter and the same interspacing shows higher pullout capacity than a helical soil nail having a double helix of the same diameter. The position of the helix and spacing-to-diameter ratio of the soil nail with a double helix of unequal diameter plays a significant role on the peak pullout capacity.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".