Dynamic Compaction: A Proven Ground Improvement Method for Landfill Sites
Bibliographic record
Abstract
During the past 40 years, ground improvement has become a valuable tool for the geotechnical community, as the number of sites with suitable bearing soils becomes fewer and farther between. Similarly, as time moves on, more sites come into focus for development that have received any number of various landfill materials, be it municipal solid waste (MSW) from households, construction and demolition (C&D) debris from construction activities, or simply soil materials exported from another site. As a result, the challenges to engineers and contractors to design and construct new developments within budget and on time continue to increase. Dynamic compaction is a ground improvement technique that has been used more frequently to improve in-place landfill materials to a point where vertical construction can proceed without excessive long-term settlements. On sites where dynamic compaction is used, alternative methods of post-improvement evaluation have become more common, given the number of below-grade obstructions at a site that typically prohibit standard drilling approaches. Embankment load testing, plate load testing, and where applicable, post-improvement drilling are all techniques that have been used successfully to evaluate the effectiveness of dynamic compaction programs, as outlined by the three case studies discussed herein.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".