Seismic Helical Pile Response in Nonliquefiable and Liquefiable Soil
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Three-dimensional finite-element models were developed and validated employing the published results from a comparative shaking table testing program of identical four-pile groups installed in saturated and dry sands. The validated models were used to analyze the seismic lateral and axial responses of helical piles to investigate the soil–helical pile–superstructure interaction. The analysis results demonstrated that the lateral displacements of the helical piles and adjacent soil decreased compared with those of the conventional straight shaft piles. In the saturated soil tests, the maximum bending moments occurred at the interface of the layers, while they occurred at the pile top in the dry tests. The stresses and strains in the helices were higher in the dry tests than in the saturated tests and were less in the double-helical pile helices than in the single-helical pile helix. The end-bearing force increased as the ground motion intensity increased in the dry tests, while it decreased in the saturated tests due to the development of high excess pore pressure in the bearing stratum. As liquefaction occurred, the shaft resistance of the helical piles diminished and the pile settled. However, the higher end-bearing force was mobilized, which compensated for the decrease in the shaft force. This observation demonstrated the excellent performance of helical piles in maintaining their capacity during and after liquefaction and controlling the postliquefaction settlement. The second helix further reduced the helical pile settlement but had a negligible effect on the lateral displacement. Finally, the response of the helical pile groups in the saturated test was dominated by rocking behavior, while flexural behavior dominated the response in the dry tests.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".