Drilled shaft foundation construction problems
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Various problems were encountered during the construction of three full-scale Drilled Shaft Foundations (DSF) at the Monticello Arkansas Test Site (MATS). These construction problems included, but were not limited to: loss of slurry, broken equipment and premature set-up of the concrete. Comparisons between the results obtained from the Bi-directional Load Cell (BLC) testing that was performed on each of the DSF aided in the determination of the effects of the construction problems on the axial capacity of the DSF. The measured unit end bearing resistance values were investigated to determine the effects of using a 1.2 m diameter clean-out bucket on a 1.8 m diameter DSF. In the South 1.2 m diameter DSF, the bottom plate of the BLC moved more than predicted (approximately 10 cm) due to the premature set-up of concrete below the BLC. Soil data obtained by using the Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department (AHTD) and University of Arkansas (UofA) geotechnical investigation methods, in conjunction with the FB-Deep software program, were used to accurately predict the unit side resistance responses for the three DSF at the MATS. Therefore, the use of these geotechnical investigation techniques and this software programme are recommended for further use within the state of Arkansas. Due to the problems associated with maintaining an open DSF excavation overnight and the associated construction savings that may be obtained by constructing a DSF during a single day (for cohesionless soils), it is recommended that DSF be constructed (drilled and poured) in a single day.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 it