MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2161939664 · doi:10.1139/t09-132

Use of expanding polyurethane resin to remediate expansive soil foundations

2010· article· en· W2161939664 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Olivier Buzzi, Stephen Fityus, Scott W. Sloan

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGrouting, Rheology, and Soil Mechanics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExpansive clayGeotechnical engineeringFoundation (evidence)SwellingSettlement (finance)PolyurethaneExpansiveEnvironmental scienceMaterials scienceGeologyComposite materialSoil waterSoil scienceCompressive strength

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.544
Threshold uncertainty score0.946

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.217 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations101
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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