MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1983758377 · doi:10.1680/geng.13.00130

Laboratory investigation of shaft grouting

2014· article· en· W1983758377 on OpenAlexaff
Vahidoddin Fattahpour, Béatrice A. Baudet, James W. C. Sze

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Geotechnical Engineering · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGrouting, Rheology, and Soil Mechanics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGroutGeotechnical engineeringCompactionDrainagePileGeologyPore water pressureEffective stressHomogeneousPrincipal stressStress (linguistics)Materials scienceShear stressComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A series of tests is carried out using a purpose-built set-up to model compaction grouting around a pile shaft. The tests are performed on Hong Kong completely decomposed granite placed in a Rowe cell, with cement grout directly injected at the bottom of the cell from a pressure interface chamber. The soil specimens are tested under different initial stress and density conditions, either normally consolidated or overconsolidated. Different grouting pressures are used. The results indicate that a target volume of grout can be injected if the grout injection pressure is larger than the total stress by a magnitude at least equal to the effective stress. There is a tendency for the grout to propagate between the pile and the soil, with a residual densification of the soil after drainage. In loose soil, grouting has the effect of reducing the effective stress in the soil to zero, resulting in a homogeneous layer of grout between the shaft and soil. In denser specimens, fractures can occur parallel to the direction of minimum principal stress. A noticeable decrease in void ratio is achieved after grouting, due to both grout injection and drainage.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.140
Threshold uncertainty score0.965

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.005
GPT teacher head0.168
Teacher spread0.164 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Geotechnical EngineeringSame topicGrouting, Rheology, and Soil MechanicsFrench-language works237,207