Permeation behaviour of PHPA polymer fluids in sand
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Polymer solutions are now commonly used as excavation-support fluids for the construction of bored piles (drilled shafts) and diaphragm walls around the world. Fluids based on synthetic polymers have several advantages over the conventional bentonite-based slurries, including improved foundation performance, smaller site footprint and reduced environmental impact. However, the flow behaviour of polymer fluids in soils is not well understood, and this hinders the study of the stabilising mechanisms of the support fluids. This paper presents the results of an experimental study to investigate the permeation characteristics of polymer fluids in coarse soils at the macroscopic level. To this end, constant-head permeability tests were carried out using three gradings of sand and partially hydrolysed polyacrylamide solutions over a range of concentrations, with water as a reference fluid. The results show that, under steady-state flow conditions, the hydraulic conductivity of the sand reduced from about 10 −2 m/s when tested with water to values ranging from an order of 10 −4 to 10 −7 m/s when permeated with polymer solutions. This reduction in permeability by many orders of magnitude explains why polymer fluids can stabilise excavations in sand, while water alone cannot. In addition, the rheological properties of the polymer fluids derived from the permeability tests were found to differ from those measured in a rheometer. This suggests that the permeation behaviour of polymer fluids in sand cannot be predicted from rheometer measurements alone and that the effect of soil must be considered. The findings reported in this paper will provide the basis for future investigations into the stability of excavations stabilised with polymer fluids.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".