Optimization of grouting method and axial performance of pressure-grouted helical piles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pressure-grouted helical pile (PGHP) is an innovative piling system that allows a significant increase in helical pile capacity with relatively low additional cost. The pile is constructed by applying pressurized grout during the installation of conventional helical piles. The grout is injected into the ground through two nozzles welded to the hollow pile shaft. This paper presents a comprehensive laboratory study to investigate the effect of three different nozzle configurations on the shape and axial performance of PGHP. The results reveal a significant increase in the PGHP shaft resistance over that of the un-grouted helical pile due to the formation of a continuous grout column with a larger diameter, higher friction angle at the pile–soil interface, and higher lateral earth pressure around the pile. The shape and diameter of the grout column created depend on the nozzle configuration used for grout injection. An increase in the end-bearing resistance is observed due to grout dissipation into the supporting soil voids. The study also shows that PGHPs installed with the third nozzle configuration have the fastest installation rate and the highest compression and pullout resistances. Thus, the third nozzle configuration is recommended for PGHP construction.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".