MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2122739656 · doi:10.1139/t00-093

A field trial of jet-grouting in marine clay

2001· article· en· W2122739656 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Teoh Yaw Poh, Ing Hieng Wong

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGrouting, Rheology, and Soil Mechanics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeotechnical engineeringJet (fluid)ExcavationGeologyBasementDiaphragm (acoustics)Deformation (meteorology)Engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The basement excavation of the Singapore Post Center involved extensive jet-grouting to improve the soft marine clay present within the excavation. The treated soil mass, with much improved strength and deformation characteristics, was intended to act as an internal strut below the bottom of the excavation level, reducing movements caused by the basement excavation. This paper presents the performance of a well-instrumented field jet-grouting trial during the construction of the building basement. Results of monitoring suggest that the jet-grouting trial caused the retaining diaphragm walls and the adjacent soils immediately behind and at some distance away from the walls to move away from the jet-grouted area. The maximum free field lateral soil movements in the excavation side of the jet-grouted mass were much larger than the corresponding lateral movements behind the wall. The results suggest that the diaphragm wall provided considerable restraint, thereby reducing the lateral movements of the soil behind the wall induced by the jet-grouting. Bending moments were induced in the diaphragm walls due to the jet-grouting work. The jet-grouting also caused some increase in the lateral earth pressure and the piezometric levels.Key words: jet-grouting, ground improvement, diaphragm wall, ground movements.

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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.696
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.206 · 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

Citations37
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Geotechnical JournalSame topicGrouting, Rheology, and Soil MechanicsFrench-language works237,207