Bio-grouting to enhance axial pull-out response of pervious concrete ground improvement piles
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
Bio-grouting is an environmentallly friendly, sustainable, and low-cost ground improvement technique, which mainly utilizes microbial-induced carbonate precipitation. Previous large-scale applications of MICP have encountered practical difficulties including bio-clogging, which resulted in a limited zone of cemented soil around injection points. The research presented in this paper focuses on evaluating the feasibility of cementing a limited soil zone surrounding permeable piles using MICP bio-grouting to improve the mechanical response of permeable piles under axial pull-out loading. Two instrumented pervious concrete piles (test units), one with and one without MICP bio-grouting, were subjected to pull-out loading at the Soil-Structure Interaction Facility at Lehigh University. The pervious concrete pile served as an injection point during the MICP bio-grouting. The mechanical responses of the test units and surrounding soil were analyzed, along with shear wave (S-wave) velocities, moisture, and CaCO 3 contents of the surrounding soil. The results presented in this paper demonstrate that the limited MICP-improved zone, extending a radial distance of approximately 102 mm around pervious concrete piles, improved the load–displacement response, load transfer, and pile capacity under pull-out loading. The ratios between ultimate loads of the test units with and without MICP bio-grouting were 4.2. The average shaft resistance along the pile with MICP bio-grouting was up to 2.8 times higher than that of the pile without bio-grouting.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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