Measuring while drilling in Florida limestone for geotechnical site investigation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Florida limestone can be challenging to recover during coring operations, as the rock generally is soft, porous, and often highly weathered. Low recoveries coupled with poor rock quality are common in Florida, which limits the data available for geotechnical design. However, the low recoveries and poor rock quality may be attributable to coring techniques and not the rock’s in situ condition. This paper explores integrating measuring while drilling (MWD) into standard coring procedures to provide in situ strength assessment and optimize core recoveries and rock quality to improve rock mass characterization. Six drilling parameters were monitored during the research, and a controlled drilling environment was developed to investigate each monitored parameter’s effects. Variable drill bit configurations were also explored to investigate the effects of bit geometry. Interdependent relationships between the drilling parameters were discovered and a new concept of operating within optimal drilling parameter ranges based on these relationships is introduced. The coring practices developed in the controlled environment were then tested in natural Florida limestone. It was concluded that operating within the optimal ranges allows in situ strength assessment and improves core recoveries and rock quality.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".