Long Piles in Thick Lacustrine and Deltaic Deposits: Two Bridge Foundation Case Histories
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two recent bridge projects in British Columbia highlight the importance of having well-instrumented pile loading tests as part of pile foundation design. First case is the 1.5 km long, five-lane W.R. Bennett Bridge in the challenging Okanagan Lake soil profile with soft and loose to medium dense silts and silty sands to depths over 100 m. Five 610-mm diameter open- and closed-toe test piles were driven to 45 m depth. Pile dynamics tests were performed for all five test piles and a static loading test was carried out on the center pile, driven closed-toe. The importance of considering residual load in the test interpretation is illustrated. Second case is the 2.6 km long (main bridge and approaches) six-lane, cable-stayed Golden Ears Bridge over the Fraser River delta. Soils consisted of thick, potentially liquefiable sands, overlying near-normally consolidated soft to stiff clayey silts and silty clays to over 120 m depth. The south approach and main span piers are founded on 2.5 m diameter bored piles of up to 85 m length. Four loading tests were carried out for this project. One of the tests, a 74 m deep 2.5 m diameter pile loaded with bi-directional O-cells is described and the test results, their interpretation, and general foundation design methods and considerations are presented.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".