Field study of group effects on the pullout capacity of “deep” helical piles in sand
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents the results of a field load test program used to investigate group effects on the pullout capacity of single-helix “deep” helical piles/anchors in sand. The high tensile capacity and silent installation of helical piles has given them serious consideration as an alternative to conventional deep foundations and anchors for offshore renewable energy structures. New offshore applications may consider the use of groups of helical piles to resist structural loads. Group interaction effects are known to occur in helical piles, but there is a scarcity of field data on groups in sands under tensile loading. This study involved the installation and load testing of single-helix 152 mm diameter round shaft piles and pile groups embedded in sand to depths of 12 and 18 helix diameters below the ground surface. The study was designed to explore the effects of close pile spacing, group configuration (i.e., number of piles), and soil strength (i.e., friction angle) as interpreted from cone penetration test (CPT) resistance. The results showed group efficiencies ranging from about 0.6 to 1.0 at a horizontal spacing of 2 to 3 times the helix diameter in sands with friction angles of about 39° to 44°. The data from this study may also be useful for validation of numerical models for analysis of helical pile group interactions.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".