Evaluation of jet grout column diameters by acoustic monitoring
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To evaluate the diameter of jet grout columns actually formed under the ground, several methods had been developed over the past years. Nevertheless, uncertainty still exists in different methods mostly due to the variations of ground and grouting conditions. This study proposes an acoustic monitoring system capable of directly recording the jet grouting sounds detected at different distances from the jet nozzle. To correlate the actual diameter of the jet grout column with the monitored sound prints, a field test was conducted in an interlayered sandy and gravelly soil and the jet grout column was excavated for dimension measurement. The recorded sounds show that the distribution of the threshold peak amplitudes at different distances can be represented by the curve of the normal distribution function. In addition, the standard deviation and mean of the normally distributed threshold peak amplitudes can be used as indicators to determine the effective diameter of the jet grout column for a specific jet grouting project. Although this acoustic monitoring method would be costly and time-consuming if used to examine all jet grout columns, it is suitable for frequent use in trial tests for finding reasonable grouting parameters when forming jet grout columns with design diameters.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".