DEVELOPMENTS IN DEEP FOUNDATION HIGHWAY PRACTICE - THE LAST QUARTER CENTURY. IN: CURRENT PRACTICES AND FUTURE TRENDS IN DEEP FOUNDATIONS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper examines the many significant changes in deep foundation design and construction, with the United States highway practice, during the last quarter century. The impressive listing of advancements has resulted in numerous benefits to the professional community, the deep foundation industry, and to United States taxpayers as well as private owners. The benefits have been tangible and intangible, and include reduced total project cost, accelerated speed of construction, development and deployment of improved materials and construction equipment, improved specifications and contracting procedures, and an overall improved appreciation of Geotechnical Engineering within the highway industry. Based on the author's more than 30 years of experience, in depth comparisons are made between current practice, national practice circa 1980, and 20 years in the future (2023). The information provided is partially obtained from the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) Geotechnical Program Review series that has been used by FHWA's National Geotechnical Team (NGT) to benchmark and assess Geotechnical Engineering highway practice since the early 1970s. Unfortunately, not all the developments have been positive nor have all the important and necessary changes that should have taken place occurred. This paper examines these topics by following an overall suggested development and delivery flowchart for deep foundation projects. An overall suggested design and construction process is presented with emphasis on several key steps that are sometimes omitted or misapplied on even major projects.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".