Bibliographic record
Abstract
Helical piles are used frequently in western Canada to support transmission line towers due to their high tensile capacities and their ease of installation in difficult soil conditions such as soft clays or organic materials. There are several studies documenting their performance under lateral loads. However, most of the available studies are for single piles. The use of group of piles to support the foundations of transmission line towers is very common. Depending on the type of tower (i.e., tangent, light angle, heavy angle, or dead end) and loading conditions, groups of two to five piles are frequently used. In the present study, two pile groups, each of them with two piles, were presented. The paper documents the pile configuration and installation details of pile groups. The pile groups were installed into very stiff clay till so that one pile was vertical and the trailing pile was inclined at batter angle of either 20 or 30°. Soil stratifications and groundwater conditions were also summarized. Lateral load tests were performed using ASTM standard ASTM D3966 (ASTM 2013) for lateral load tests and the results were summarized in the paper. The results of the load tests were compared to a theoretical model using nonlinear p-y curves for lateral loading and t-z curves for axial loading. Based on the results of this study, it was found that a group of two helical piles can develop considerable resistance to lateral loads and that the lateral resistances of the pile group are highly dependent on the batter angle.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".