CPT-based design method for helical piles in sand
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Helical piles are used extensively for low and medium rise developments and are a popular foundation solution in cases where resistance to significant uplift loads is required. The ability to re-use helical piles and recent interest in their use as foundations in offshore wind and solar energy applications has renewed interest in improving existing design methods. This paper presents the results from field investigations in medium dense and dense sand that examine effects on the axial tension and compression capacity of varying the helix pitch, shaft diameter, advancement ratio and shaft tip geometry. The results from the 20 pile tests conducted (many of which included instrumentation) indicate low sensitivity to a range of the investigated parameters and a strong correlation of the capacity to the cone penetration test resistance. A design method based on these findings is proposed for typical helical pile geometries and is shown to provide predictions that are generally within 10 to 15% of the axial capacities reported for 30 other well documented pile tests reported in the literature. The method, referred to as UWASP-22, incorporates a simple means of estimating the load-displacement response of a helical pile as well as a formulation enabling prediction of the installation torque which is a common quality control measure for helical piles.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".