Influence of Boundary Insulation on the Growth of Frozen Soils during AGF Modeling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract To clarify the influence of boundary insulation on the development of frozen soils, seven artificial ground freezing (AGF) models of Ottawa sand were performed with different thermal impedance Z-values of the boundary insulation system. Results of testing show that the greater the Z-values, the larger the frozen soil areas for a given time of freezing. When the Z-value is more than 2.27 m2 K/W, however, the extent of frozen soils appears to be stabilized for the AGF model with dimensions of 100 cm (L) by 100 cm (W) by 15 cm (H). Two-dimensional finite element analyses were also conducted to verify the performance of boundary insulation systems of the physical model. Numerical simulations show the development of frozen soils is significantly affected by the ambient temperature if no insulation is covered on the boundary of the AGF model, and the growth of frozen soils would cease at a freezing time of less than 6 h. However, when the Z-value of the boundary insulation system is more than 2.27 m2 K/W, the pattern of the temperature field and the size of frozen soils in the model resemble those for a system with a perfectly insulated boundary with an elapsed time of freezing up to 24 h. Hence, it can be concluded that the thermal impedance Z-value should be at least 2.27 m2 K/W for the boundary insulation system of the current AGF model to be free from the influence of an ambient environment and have a similar temperature response as the perfectly insulated model for a test time up to 24 h.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 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".