MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2312545287 · doi:10.1139/t2012-059

Effect of pressurized grouting on pullout resistance and group efficiency of compression ground anchor

2012· article· en· W2312545287 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Seok Won Lee, Tea-Seob Kim, Bo-Kyoung Sim, Jong‐Sun Kim, In-Mo Lee

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGrouting, Rheology, and Soil Mechanics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGroutGeotechnical engineeringPenetration testCompression (physics)EngineeringPenetration (warfare)Structural engineeringMaterials scienceComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study is to investigate the effect of pressurized grouting on pullout resistance and the group effect of the compression ground anchor by performing pilot-scale laboratory chamber tests and field tests. The laboratory test results show that the enlargement of the anchor body diameter estimated theoretically by combining the cavity expansion theory and grout penetration characteristics matches reasonably well with that obtained from experiments. The required injection time as a function of the coefficient of permeability of the ground is proposed. The results of a series of field anchor pullout tests show that the effect of pressurized grouting is more prominent in a softer ground with a smaller SPT-N value for an increase in both anchor body diameter and pullout resistance. The pressurized grouting effect in comparison with gravitational grouting was found to be almost zero if the SPT-N value is more than 50. Based on experimental results, a new equation to estimate the pullout resistance as a function of the SPT-N 60 value is proposed. In addition, based on in situ group anchor pullout test results, a new group effect equation is proposed.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.395
Threshold uncertainty score0.635

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.207 · 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

Citations22
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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