Obstructed and Damaged Piles–Some Case Histories of Pile Repairs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Five piled foundation case histories from construction projects in Greater Vancouver, British Columbia are presented. Driven steel pipe piles and drilled shafts had to be repaired to address damage or concerns regarding insufficient ultimate capacity in compression, uplift and/or lateral loading. For many of the piles, lateral loading requirements under extreme seismic events controlled the design, which in turn required minimum embedment depths. These case histories demonstrate that piles which drive short are more difficult to deal with than piles which drive long. In two of the case histories, the presence of confined water pressures resulted in disturbance of the material at the drilled shaft base elevation. Driven pile obstructions occurred because of large glacial erratics that are often present in till-like deposits. In some cases, obstructions were caused by tree trunks entrained within ancient slide debris. Repair methods had to be used when drilling out and replacing obstructed piles was not possible. The repair methods included: driving stinger H-piles inside damaged pipe piles to increase vertical capacity, installing anchors inside and outside driven pipe piles to increase uplift resistance, base-grouting drilled shafts to harden loose zones at the base, and construction of a composite foundation with a shaft carrying lateral loads and a near-surface footing carrying compression loads. Identifying pile installation risks early in the project and providing guidance and potential remediation techniques for the piling contractor was useful for developing repair solutions under tight schedule constraints.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".