The prediction of groundborne vibration from percussive piling
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
Environmental assessments of proposed infrastructure projects include an appraisal of the vibration that would be generated by potential construction methods. This paper considers one part of that process: prediction of groundborne vibration from percussive piling. Various methods for predicting the magnitude of the groundborne vibration generated by percussive piling have been described in the literature. In general, the accuracy of the predictors is limited. The paper investigates the reasons for this, through the development of theoretical models and analysis of field data from an extensive programme of on-site vibration monitoring. It is found that some widespread assumptions about the relationship between the energy rating of a percussive piling hammer and the vibrational energy developed in the ground are invalid. Ground conditions are shown to have a dominant influence on the magnitude of the groundborne vibration generated by percussive piling, and piling vibration predictors which take no account of soil type yield considerably less accurate estimates than site-specific predictions.Key words: piling, vibration, monitoring, prediction, environmental assessment.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 it