Evaluation of jet grout column diameters by acoustic monitoring
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
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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