Vacuum pressure distribution and pore pressure variation in ground improved by vacuum preloading
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents the difference between vacuum pressure and pore pressure reduction for vacuum preloading projects. The experimental results show that the pattern of the fluid flow under vacuum pressure can be classified into three categories—a single-phase water flow, an air–water two-phase flow, and a single-phase air flow. The field test results show that the vacuum pressure reaches the highest value at the ground level and the measured gradients of the vacuum pressure in the vertical direction are approximately 11 kPa/m. It is demonstrated that (i) the treatment area of vacuum preloading cannot be sealed and does not need to be airtight, (ii) the air–water mixture is drawn out from the treatment area under vacuum pressure and the groundwater level drops owing to the presence of air in practice, and (iii) there is an air–water two-phase flow in the unsaturated zone during preloading. The study shows that (i) the vacuum pressure is only a part of the pore pressure reduction along the depth of improving soil; and (ii) the vacuum pressure induces the soil to undergo isotropic consolidation, whereas the pore pressure reduction that is greater than the atmospheric pressure induces the soil to undergo one-dimensional consolidation.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it