Field investigation of axial monotonic and cyclic performance of reinforced helical pulldown micropiles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Helical piles are used increasingly to support new and existing foundations. This paper presents a field study on the axial monotonic and cyclic behaviour of steel fibre–reinforced helical pulldown micropiles. Test piles consisted of a round corner square helical pile with three helices attached to it, and a steel fibre–reinforced grout shaft. To assess the grout shaft contribution, one helical pile without a grout shaft was tested. Piles were instrumented with strain gauges to evaluate the load-transfer mechanism. This paper discusses the load–displacement response of this pile system, and load-sharing mechanism between the grout shaft and lead section. The study shows that the grout shaft significantly improves the helical pile axial performance. It was found that the load-transfer mechanism within the lead section is through individual bearing of each helix. Also, the findings demonstrate that the behaviour of this pile system is satisfactory under one-way cyclic loading conditions. The results suggest that the reinforced helical pulldown micropile is a viable deep foundation option for axial monotonic and one-way cyclic loading applications.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".