Explosive compaction: design, implementation and effectiveness
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although used for over 70 years, Explosive Compaction (EC) has not attained widespread acceptance despite the attraction of low cost and ease of treating large depths. Lack of familiarity with the method, and an empirical design approach unrelated to theory, appear the primary cause for reticence in adopting EC. To alleviate these concerns, practical design considerations for EC based on detailed experience from nine applications and trials are presented here to illustrate the predictable and repeatable effectiveness of EC. Design is based on cavity expansion theory. EC readily gives volume changes 2–3 times larger than might occur under large earthquake motions, with final average relative densities often greater than 70%. Further, environmental and vibration control issues do not constrain the use of EC provided that appropriate explosives and delayed detonation sequences are used. As pronounced post-blast time effects are evident in penetration testing, evaluation of the effectiveness of EC should be based on a combination of pre- and post-blast penetration testing and volume change measurements.
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.
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) | 0.001 | 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 it