Evaluation of Seismic Soil–Structure Interaction of Full-Scale Grouped Helical Piles in Dense Sand
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A full-scale shake table testing program was performed with two helical pile groups supporting model structures to better understand the dynamic properties of a soil–pile-group–structure system. Each group had four piles embedded in dry, dense sand confined in a 6.7 m L × 3.0 m W × 4.6 m H laminar box. One group was comprised of 8.8-cm diameter and 3.66-m long helical piles, while the second group had 14-cm diameter and 4.27-m long helical piles. To investigate the influence of the pile-head fixity condition on group behavior, both pinned head and fixed head connections were implemented and tested. White noise excitation and two replicated strong earthquake motions were used to determine the natural frequency and observe the seismic behavior of the soil–pile-group–structure system, respectively. The experimental observations were analyzed to evaluate structural natural frequency and pile-group stiffness and damping. The experimental results were used to calibrate a numerical model that was then used to conduct a parametric study to gain a broader understanding of the seismic behavior of helical pile groups under varying conditions. The experimental and numerical results were compared and the effects of varying properties in a soil–pile–structure system, including their system seismic response, are discussed.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".