Cyclic response of pre-failed and reinstalled single-helix piles in sand
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Helical piles can be rescrewed at greater depths after failure and put back into service again as long as their integrity is preserved. However, reports on the lifetime performance after reinstallation are completely missing in the literature. This work compares the tensile cyclic response of single helix piles in dry and saturated sand after experiencing failure due to monotonic uplift and after reinstallation, using centrifuge model testing. Tensile cyclic tests were conducted on three model piles with different helix-to-shaft diameter ratios, under two different conditions: (1) cyclic loading after monotonic pile failure, and (2) cyclic loading on a pile that has been reinstalled deeper into the soil after experiencing a monotonic failure. The experiments revealed that the preceding monotonic failure causes significant influence on the post-failure cyclic performance, in which few tens of cycles are enough to lead to a critical accumulated displacement. The cyclic tests on the reinstalled helical pile at a depth of 2 D ( D = helix diameter) below the initial helix depth showed that the cyclic performance can be partially to fully recovered depending on the loading amplitude.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".