Impulse response evaluation of drilled shafts with pile caps: modeling and experiment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Impulse response, a nondestructive surface reflection technique, offers a way to assess the quality and integrity of deep foundations. While the impulse response test is a straightforward method to implement, interpretation of the data is often difficult. The response of a shaft will be affected by construction conditions, accessibility and quality of the concrete, as well as by gross defects in geometry. As a result, test responses seldom resemble the ideal theoretical response. The difficulty is increased when the accessibility of the shaft is limited by the presence of a pile cap or other structures. This study progressively develops and builds two-dimensional (2-D) and three-dimensional (3-D) finite element models of experimentally tested shafts to identify key structural features that can be modeled and captured experimentally. For shafts with pile caps, the model helped confirm previous interpretations of the experimental data presented in this paper, identifying the shaft base, a defect, and the base of the pile cap.Key words: nondestructive testing, quality assessment, quality assurance, impulse response.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".