Use of expanding polyurethane resin to remediate expansive soil foundations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Injection of expansive polyurethane resin can be used to remediate differential settlement issues. The resin is injected incrementally under a structure to achieve a desired foundation level, forming a composite resin–clay material. This solution is not well documented in the literature and some questions arise on the long-term performance of this solution. As injection is usually carried out in a settled soil mass that is dry and dessicated, rehydration of the soil after injection may lead to swelling of the leveled foundation and overlifting of the structure. Experimental research undertaken to investigate this rehydration issue and determine if there is a risk of overlifting in the long term is presented here. In situ and laboratory testing was performed to investigate the most fundamental aspects of the problems. This included the in situ injection of resin, study of resin propagation in the soil mass, influence of resin on the hydraulic conductivity of the soil mass, and large-scale swelling tests. The results suggest that, even though the resin cannot prevent the rehydration of the soil mass, the risk of overlifting in the long term is limited.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".