Axial load testing of helical pile groups in glaciolacustrine clay
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The behaviour of helical pile groups has not previously been experimentally investigated through field testing. In the present study, field compressive load tests of 2 × 2 helical pile groups and single piles were conducted in a glaciolacustrine clay in Edmonton, Canada. The group pile spacing, interhelix spacing, and soil setup time were varied. Piezometers were used to measure the excess pore pressure (u e ) response to pile installation. Selected groups contained a strain gauge instrumented pile that was used to estimate the pile load transfer and failure mechanism. Group performance was evaluated by estimating the group efficiencies and settlement ratios. Results show that the group interaction of small-diameter helical piles was lower than that of conventional pile groups. The short-term performance of groups was significantly reduced by u e , and groups with smaller group pile spacing had a greater reduction in short-term performance. Instrumented grouped piles and one single pile, both having an interhelix spacing ratio of 5, exhibited individual bearing failure. The measured group capacities and load distributions indicated that individual pile failure occurred, as opposed to block failure.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".