Physical modelling of pile drilling in sand
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Drilling for foundation piles and tieback anchors through soils using a continuous casing to support the borehole is often referred to as “overburden drilling”. Monitoring data from several case studies show that overburden drilling may cause considerable short-term ground settlements indicating a loss of soil volume around the casings. However, further insight is required to understand the mechanisms that govern overburden drilling. Novel physical model tests were carried out to investigate the effects of varying parameters such as flushing media (water or air), flow and penetration rate on the penetration force, pore pressure changes, soil displacements, and drill cutting transport. Tests with water flushing indicate a clear relation between the flow and penetration rate and the resulting influence on the surrounding ground. Increasing flow rates caused larger excess pore pressures at greater radial distances and generated more excess drill cuttings compared to the theoretical casing volume. The obtained results were translated into a non-dimensional framework to estimate optimal flushing parameters in similar conditions. The air flushing tests were considerably limited by the modelling constraints. Notable reduction of pore pressures adjacent to the casing indicate an air-lift pump effect that can lead to extensive ground movements as observed in the field.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".