Dissolution Features of Karst Foundations at Different Depth Sections
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The dissolution of karst foundations can be divided into rock surface dissolution and hole dissolution.The dissolution features of karst foundations at different depths must be clearly identified before taking proper karst treatment measures.In this paper, more than 200 engineering data samples are collected from typical carbonate karstic regions in southwestern China, and 12 most representative engineering site were picked out.The rock surface dissolution ratio, hole dissolution ratio, and total dissolution ratio were measured at each engineering site, and used to fit the relationship between rock surface dissolution ratio and hole dissolution ratio at different depth sections.The results show that the karst foundation can be split into three sections from top to bottom: rock surface dissolution section Ⅰ, composite dissolution section Ⅱ, and hole dissolution section Ⅲ.The three sections occur inevitably as the rock surface dissolution occurs naturally from the inside.The dissolution degree decreases exponentially with the growing depth, and the rock surface dissolution ratio drops faster than the total dissolution ratio.Moreover, the hole dissolution ratio per unit volume of rock decreases with the increase of depth.If the holes are not developed, the engineering sites will only have rock surface dissolution section; if the holes become more developed, the composite dissolution section will expand gradually and dominate site dissolution.At most locations, the hole dissolution ratios under the minimum elevation of rock surface are within 10%.Finally, it is suggested that the final elevation of the drilling holes must be controlled above the minimum elevation of rock surface.The research results shed new light on the mitigation of dissolution of karst foundations.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".