Test study on the characteristics of mudcakes and in situ soils around bored piles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Constructing a bored pile produces a disturbed zone of soil adjacent to the pile, referred to as a “mudcake.” The physical properties of the mudcake are different from those of the surrounding soil. This paper reports research on bored piles in silt, clay, and sandy silt layers in Hangzhou, China. Laboratory tests were performed on samples of in situ soil, mudcake, and mudcake mixed with cement grout. The test results showed that mudcakes have a higher water content, higher void ratio, higher compressibility, lower friction, and lower shear strength than in situ soils. They also showed that mudcake properties could be improved by the addition of cement grout. Mudcakes form a weak, thin layer between a pile and a borehole wall, which can lead to a decrease in bearing capacity and an increase in settlement of the pile. Grouting improves the characteristics of mudcakes remarkably, thereby increasing the bearing capacity of piles, which is demonstrated by the case history in this paper.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 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".